26 replies to this topic

[culverin]

Dear PGI,

Foreword:

I know some of you are actual BattleTech junkies.
I would like you to think on Solaris 7 fights.
I would like you to remember Aidan Pryde, the Jade Phoenix and his Summoner, a 70 ton and his acrobatics.



This is in regards to the jump jet change in the latest patch.
"Jump Jets now provide a slight forward thrust on take off. Once in the air you cannot vector off your current trajectory."
~ PATCH NOTES - 1.2.245 - 01-OCT-2013



I don't think jump jets need to "provide a slight forward thrust". I would call this a temporary fix.
I think most of the frustration we have during jump jets with the zero forward momentum could be eliminated by putting this in the players's hands. In fact, I think taking this control out of the players hands could prove rather frustrating.
Player control = fun
And more importantly, draws out player skills.
The more skill we have, the more you will see in emergent gameplay and piloting tactics.


Please consider my simple proposal:
Jump jets have 3 types of thrust available to the player.
- Vertical
- Forward
- Reverse
Make each use of thrust drain the jump jet fuel tank.
While forward and reverse is physic-wise would use less fuel since you don't have to fight gravity, but let's just cancel that out and say "it's due to jump jet placement" or some other lore-based answer.



I have played previous MechWarrior games as well as other mecha games.

I have a pretty extensive of BattleTech sourcebooks, novels and TROs from my days of table top, I would like to think I know my lore pretty well.
You won't end up with the overpowered directional MekTek Mech Pack 4 silliness.

[General Taskeen]

culverin, on 02 October 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Player control = fun

Indeed.

something like your idea has been brought up before. I doubt many people would disagree with making jump jets more strategic and fun (more player controlled).

Take a look at this:

[Captain Stiffy]

It should just be based on how the torso/legs are aimed depending on where the jets are installed.

What is so hard about that?

Intentionally nerfing game mechanics to stop the best from being the best has got to end.

[culverin]

Captain Stiffy, on 02 October 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

It should just be based on how the torso/legs are aimed depending on where the jets are installed.

What is so hard about that?

Intentionally nerfing game mechanics to stop the best from being the best has got to end.

Captain Stiffy,
I usually try to keep my requests and suggestion more feasible.
While I agree with you that they should totally be based on the mech (and even the variant) to give more flavor to the various mechs, I think we can all agree that this game has some more "basic" things that could be fixed.
I would just rather we get a bit of this global change before they start getting specific.

[Captain Stiffy]

They way that they originally worked (4? months ago?) before the momentum nerf was just fine. Why was that at all necessary? The shake wasn't necessary either.

[Spheroid]

Jump jets are far too gimped in MWO. In the boardgame they gave you vast, vast levels of agility. MWO is a joke in this regard. They already have balanced jump abuse with cockpit shake they could easily balance with heat as they are quite hot in TT. MW2 had extremely fun vectored jumpjets. In my opinion the only egregious fault of that rendering was that speed could greatly exceed max running speed. Obviously standard jumpjets should not propel mechs faster than max walking speed. MW3 did okay but they felt a bit sluggish to me.

[Raso]

I think that JJ thrust control should be linked to where they are placed.

• JJs in the legs provide rotational control and limited lateral control.
  
• JJs in in the CT would provide forward thrust.
  
• JJs in the side torsos provide lateral trust and limited rotational control.
  
• All JJs would provide vertical thrust but CT and leg JJs would provide the most.

This would mean that if you invested more tonnage into JJs you could receive a much better benefit. On lights you could have superb flight skills at the cost of armor and tonnage while assaults like the Victor could become deadly flankers and skirmishers.

Most JJ capable mechs have different vent locations spread through out the mechs to begin with, too. So you could even have the placement of the JJs affect where the thrust comes from.

For the sake of simplicity a JJ placed on the one side of the torso or on one leg would provide equal turning and lateral performance in both directions unless we want to maybe split that crit space between both side toros and both legs but that seems, to me, to be a unnecessary complication.

An other idea would be to have a means of controlling where your thrust is applied to and how much. A simple screen with some slider would suffice. I think this would be the most ideal since I believe that way you equip are actually fuel tanks and not the thursters themselves. Maybe for every 2 units of thrust taken away from forward thrust you can apply 1 to left and right lateral control. This would only apply to lateral moment, not rotational control. The total units available could be based on mech tonnage or via quirks with 5 being the minimum and as much as 9 being the maximum (odd numbers to force a remainder of 1 unit of thrust for forward thrust). Some mechs might only have an over all total of 2 units of thrust and would, thus, lack the option for thrust control costumization (the Highlander and Catafract would be prime examples because of their blockyness and mass). Note that these units would represent a percentage of over all control, not an actual increase of control so even if a Spider might have 9 units to move around it would still have the same over all thrust as a Victor with 5 units to move around, through mech speed, the number of equipped JJs and tonnage would still factor into it's aerial performance.

[Shadey99]

I miss MW2 JJs... As I've mentioned before I used to run a training academy and my specific courses where about JJs and jump tactics. I was arguably one of the best when it came to making mechs dance. I was also a master of DFA and it was not uncommon that I'd take out a assault mech in a light by performing DFA destroying both machines.

I can almost do some of that in MWO with a 12 JJ Spider 5V, but I can't match my aerobatics in any other mech in this game. Highlanders may as well be be bricks and even 5 massive JJs cannot make them less unwieldly (though I'm sure those who are jump snipers don't really care). Catapults can at least jump turn, which as slow as mech turning in heavier machines is, is a god send.

However MWO needs to return to some form of vectored thrust. I think making them mech location specific may be going a bit to far, as certain builds with JJs for instance require filling the CT to mount any guns at all. However thrusters need to be able to move a mech: up, forward, back, and turn it right or left. And more JJs should increase both the thrust to weight (and hence acceleration) in those directions, as well as total time you can use the JJs. The current implementation ignores both the past representations and the TT mechanics and needs reworked.

[Khobai]

• 
  
  

  Quote

  • JJs in the legs provide rotational control and limited lateral control.
    
  • JJs in in the CT would provide forward thrust.
    
  • JJs in the side torsos provide lateral trust and limited rotational control.
    
  • All JJs would provide vertical thrust but CT and leg JJs would provide the most.
    

Too complicated. It would be easier just to have vectored thrust.

For example... space = thrust up, space+w = thrust forward, space+s = thrust backward, space + a/d = thrust turn left/right, space + q/e = sidethrust left/right

[MustrumRidcully]

The problem with M:WO jump jets seems to be:
- Very useful to poptarts
- Not that useful for actually getting around.

It would be better for the game if it was the other way around.

[Raso]

Khobai, on 02 October 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

[/list]Too complicated. It would be easier just to have vectored thrust.


For example... space = thrust up, space+w = thrust forward, space+s = thrust backward, space + a/d = thrust turn left/right, space + q/e = sidethrust left/right

IDK that's kinda boring. Being able to customize your control sounds much more interesting. You could make an awesome side strafing jumper or something able to power over and past obstacles.

[scJazz]

I only pilot Jump Capable mechs. I haven't tried the new Forward thrust JJ enough other than checking that they will get me off of the edge of the hill now. Having said that I really can't say that I find full vector control necessary. I would like to land with some of my momentum, I would like to maintain more momentum, and I would like to crush Spiders under the feet of my Victor. Beyond these things though. I'm not sure we need them. I know for a fact that if you gave me full vector control I'd abuse them so hard that the Devs and Mods would cry.

[culverin]

You know what?

I kinda want to take this back.


I'd be happy if we got a vertical-ish rise with decent thrust so I can do a mostly vertical jump.

[Krivvan]

Jump jets as they are right now are very good for getting around. I just notice very, very few players who know how to use them.

I'd argue that thrust control would actually be a detriment to lights unless the jump jets allowed you to instantaneously negate your momentum. At the moment you use your jump jets to maintain the momentum you had while you were last running, you pick direction in the air, and as you land you can do an instant vector change without any slow and predictable arc.

With thrust control you'd have to negate any momentum you had before in order to make a meaningful change in direction. I just see little to no use for it when you can already side strafe with the current jump jets. I don't want it to turn into MW2 jump jet physics.

Quote

The problem with M:WO jump jets seems to be:
- Very useful to poptarts
- Not that useful for actually getting around.

Is that so?





and especially starting at 7:00

Edited by Krivvan, 03 October 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[culverin]

Krivvan, on 03 October 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

I'd argue that thrust control would actually be a detriment to lights unless the jump jets allowed you to instantaneously negate your momentum. At the moment you use your jump jets to maintain the momentum you had while you were last running, you pick direction in the air, and as you land you can do an instant vector change without any slow and predictable arc.

Krivvan, I'm a light pilot. I pretty much exclusively pilot my Jenner.
I think I know how jump and get around. Yes, jump jets are very useful right now. I cannot live without jump jets.

I do not quite understand your position about how Thrust Control would be a detriment to Lights.
Why would jump jets with thrust control instantaneously negate your momentum? Why would this have to change?
Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear.

Let's just say we're all happy with the current horizontal jump distance.
Current Jump Distance = Full Throttle momentum - Air resistance slow down + All Jump Fuel Used

Perhaps we can make it...
Current Jump Distance = Full Throttle momentum - Air resistance slow down + All Jump Fuel Used for Vertical and Forward.

This means if I don't mash down Forward the entire time, jump distance is less.
So I think this could keep the balance?
The current implementation is a fairly predictable arc.
I believe giving a pilot to slightly shorten that arc would help?



Vertical acceleration is currently dependent on having ground beneath your feat.
So do they work predictably? Most of the time, yes. But sometimes, they do not.
This means this are inconsistent.
Are they fun? No, I don't think they are fun to use.
I'm not asking for ridiculous jump-strafing with horizontal thrust vectoring.




"Jump Jets now provide a slight forward thrust on take off. Once in the air you cannot vector off your current trajectory."
~ PATCH NOTES - 1.2.245 - 01-OCT-2013


Both of the changes I would like to see are directly related to this "fix".

• Increased vertical acceleration.
  Right now, it's a very slow rise over a very long period of time.
  I don't need my jump jets to go higher, I'm happy with the same distance, they just need to work faster.
  This makes jumping up out of the valley in Canyon at a full out run something that you have to do pretty far back, otherwise, you just scrape your legs along the wall, letting the incline carry you up.
  Not very fun.
  Not very realistic.
  If we a better vertical acceleration, we wouldn't slam into the cliff then be hugging it all the way up.
  
• +/- Horizontal Acceleration Control
  
  This is so you don't lose all forward momentum and can't scale a wall.
  I don't want a lot, I just want some.
  Just enough to better control my descent and land onto buildings.
  If we had horizontal acceleration, even if we slam into a cliff, we can just tap "W" and nudge ourselves onto land.

I think the question I would really like to ask is why automate that forward thrust, and not just give control to the players?

[Krivvan]

I wasn't quite exactly arguing with you, but rather people who want the ridiculous side strafing. Some subtle control of forward and backward is something I can agree with. Jump jets negating momentum was me referring to MW2.

The thing is, you already can control the arc of your jumps depending on when you do or don't apply jump jet thrust while in the air. It's how you currently control your landings to jump on and over buildings. Having backward jump jets means spending more time in the air to stick the landing, which is inferior to getting on the ground ASAP.

Forward acceleration is also a bit tricky since you maintain pretty much your entire full running speed while in the air, no matter what the meter says.

Edited by Krivvan, 03 October 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[culverin]

Yes, I'm only asking for some subtle control.
And by that I mean like from 0-velocity, I could achieve maybe a 75-degree parabolic arc.


I would think that's fair.
It would allow jump jets to be used more in a tight city fight.
Right now, there is little control and you can't hop onto buildings while they are right next to you.
That slow vertical acceleration combined with no forward thrust = move a little, jump, slam into building and not be able to get on top.

[Grym]

Vector dancing spiders...no thx.

With the hit registration issues we currently have, adding this to the mix is like breaking something already broken for the pleasure of it be very broken.

Make it so full damage registers on lights MOST (does even need to be all) of the time and then something like this could be feesibly implemented.

[culverin]

Grym, on 03 October 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Vector dancing spiders...no thx.

With the hit registration issues we currently have, adding this to the mix is like breaking something already broken for the pleasure of it be very broken.

I'm asking for a pretty minimal vector along the current X-axis of travel.

And yes, hit registration is a continued issue.
But from my understanding, the coding for vectored thrust already existed in closed beta?
It's not like we're increasing max velocity or making vertical acceleration any higher than anything currently possible in the game. So I don't think we're breaking hit detection any further.


I would rather not have jump jets stay broken.
I don't want PGI to think "oh, we gave you a little bit of forward, so it's fixed" and leave it there.

[culverin]

I'm adding these images in here from the other thread.