204 replies to this topic

[Dlardrageth]

SI The Joker, on 23 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

I just don't agree, that's all. Jump jets are for getting over obstacles/terrain or out-maneuvering a less-equipped mech... not to propel oneself to the left or right or to ram someone. That's just my opinion.

Agreed there. People wanting to do intricate aerobatics or martial arts moves while in flight and such should probably go find themselves a game more akin to Gundam MS. There you can get all that, together with *cough* slightly *cough* metrosexual characters, and a generally more anime-like design. Jump jets in BT/MW were never meant for things like that. Let me quote Sarna.Net here:

"[...]A far cry from flight, jump jets nevertheless allow a 'Mech to make short leaps sufficient enough to outmaneuver 'Mechs not similarly equipped or bypass obstacles and unfavorable terrain[...]"

And I personally don't care if somone now comes into the thread with a good old swagger, rambunctiously proclaiming that canon etc. doesn't matter. For some of us it does, as opposed to some random console dweeb, and if BT/MW canon were that irrelevant, people could just go and join up with "Hello Kitty Online" and pester the devs there to implement mecha, right? (Truth be told, I have no idea if that game might not actually have some already. That might explain where some of the posters that appear on these forums came from.)

Mason Ventris, on 23 March 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

*Jarring Liftoff-Making it more difficult but not impossible to poptart

Not good enough, sorry. (For me, that is. YMMV) If only ""more difficult [...] to poptart" is all that is achieved, I'll pass on that attempt. I am well aware that the screwy MW4 managed to **** up that one as well as many other things, but unless there's a semantic misconception here, no thanks. I can't really support in good faith a technique that exploited the quite mediocre game design of MW4 to create the "Mad Poptarting Disease".

I'd like to have the successful in-flight shots to be as rare as in the TT, and not like in the sub-standard MW4 game (which for me is still by far the worst of the whole series). And by "poptarting" you imply it would be useable on a regular basis still, just with increased difficulty. That's an outlook that would probably make me quit MWO pretty fast if it happens, and I'm confident I'm not the only one. Poptarting ruined MW4 multiplayer for quite a few people (among other shortcomings) who then turned their back on it for good and thus PGI would be well advised to curbstomp any attempt to make it viable again.

[SI The Joker]

Siilk, on 23 March 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

More juice than MWLL JJs? I dont like it... I LOVE IT!!!!! I want my JJs to blackout the hell out of me when I launch my mech into the air.

Understood. My idea here is that a ) in TT mech could travel rather long horizontal distance via JJs, not only lift itself to a higher place and b ) it would be perfectly logical for a controlled boost to be used that way to evade enemy fire or get into cover quickly. The latter, i.e. lateral jumps, is exactly the "outmanoeuvre" part, you spoke about. As for ramming, well, it's the same thing as DFA, just ...err... more horizontal. Again, if you have a rocket booster that can propel your mech at great speed and your intention in to ram your enemy(AFAIR ramming is confirmed), I fail to see how it's not logical to use this boost for your advantage.

With that said, I think we can find a middle ground here. I'm not opposed to directional jumps being jumps, not dashes, I just don't want them to be made longer only by increasing the height of the jump, but rather by decreasing it with jump trajectory becoming flatter than one of a "high" jump.

I'm still not sold. The sheer energy required to do what you're asking would exclude it from viability.

Jumps would be "higher" by having made said jump at a slower speed. Longer, shorter-in-height jumps are made when the mech is at full speed and is using its own velocity in a given direction to create the length of jump. This is one of the reasons why actually using your throttle (and not just setting it on full speed) should be part of your strategy. By controlling the speed of your mech, you in turn control the overal total available height and distance of your jumps.

In my opinion, it's not a matter of needing directional jets... it's a matter of knowing how to use the jets you do have to create a directional change effect that you desire. I do like the idea of a jarring effect when the pilot takes off with the jets though... that's pretty darn realistic if you ask me.

Edited by SI The Joker, 24 March 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Zakatak]

About 2 meganewtons of thrust, approximately.

Edited by Zakatak, 24 March 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[docmorningstar]

Tierloc, on 28 November 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

Nope. I have to admit that I have no interest in it. Infact most of you classic TT BT zombies give me a headache.... rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble.... I pointed this out in another thread when someone else was doing it, so now I'm doing it to show the system is flawed by design. I'm glad you fit the hexes together.

rambling and liking your own rambles is not the mark of high quality argument....

[docmorningstar]

My vote:

make jumpjets behave 'realistically'

that is - give them 'real' thrust as if you were actually controlling a vectorable thrust engine. Give them a max impulse. Give a max 'energy level' (fuel that recharges over time). Then apply real physics. So when you run outta juice 10m up in the air and you fall from the sky ... your 50 ton mech needs to dump about 23 Mega-joules of energy when it lands...or about 6 times the hitting power of a M1A1 abrams 120mm gun round (about the same caliber as an AC20 in game...6 AC20s to the legs...) Or if you are moving off the plane that your legs can 'run' in, you topple over.

That is all.

[IHateAtlas]

Raeven, on 27 November 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

Should be able to jump in reverse, as well. 'Mechs can land facing any direction in a jump, so turning should definately be possible, and rotation speed should be quick.

And when you land, your mech trips over itself due to forward momentum in a direction that it isn't facing. I like MW3's concept, if you were trying to turn when you landed, your mech fell flat on its face. Much more realistic. Let's you know that you really are in control of a 15-100 ton mech.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The fact is in the BT Universe mechs can jump, rotate and land facing in a different direction. This is the "reality" of that universe. Alternatively you can apply your understanding of this worlds physics to say they can't do it, when it is an established fact in BT. The logical extension of that reasoning would request an explanation of 15m tall 100 ton bipedal robots etc We can try to understand the physics of that universe, but it doesn't work to say that something which is an established canon fact and basic part of the game since the beginning, now can't work. Balancing it for gameplay is one thing. Not allowing it beacause it isn't "realistic" is another.

[guardian wolf]

I can see that upgrading to a bigger engine, for more tonnage would allow for more "fuel" per say, on the JJs, and for the landing sideways, you would have to angle your landing so that you would transfer your energy directionally into the ground. It is possible but highly unlikely. But, if it's in the canon, then I guess it stays. *shrugs*

[Dlardrageth]

guardian wolf, on 24 March 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

I can see that upgrading to a bigger engine, for more tonnage would allow for more "fuel" per say, on the JJs, and for the landing sideways, you would have to angle your landing so that you would transfer your energy directionally into the ground. It is possible but highly unlikely. But, if it's in the canon, then I guess it stays. *shrugs*

Actually, unless they changed it recently, it isn't tied to engine size really. "Reaction mass" is the key there. The supplementary reaction mass that is not provided by the engine and apparently necessary is directly tied to the number of thrusters mounted (or "jets", to make it simple). You can use a workaround of sorts for that (at least in advanced rules) by adding a "tank" with additional supplementary reaction mass. But that one of course would take up weight and crit space.

Edit: Just checked Sarna.Net, apparently that whole mechanic is detailed in the "Strategic Operations" rulebook.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 24 March 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[Neon Gunner]

I know this game is going to have mechwarrior 3 - 4 jet capabilities not mechwarrior 2 series jetting ability but I was just wondering if the developers were to make it mech 2 - ish how hard it would be. I mean they got the graphics engine on but I guess the realism of the game they are trying to make would hinder such jetting. Well anyways cheers and good gaming and this game is going to be a blast when it comes out~!

[T0RC4ED]

Although jetting around was fun back in Mechwarrior 2 (when I was like 12 or something like that) I think its important to keep that kind of thing out of the game. To be honest jump jets should be very limited. We are talking about small jet propulsion system lifting a 20 - 100 ton machine that isn't primarily made of booster rocket like the old space shuttles.

The M1 Abrams main battle tank weighs 67.6 short tons so in the heavy mech weight range with similar aero dynamics (meaning it dosn't have wings). It would take an incredible ammount of power just to lift one.

BT needs to keep things in the realm of consievable possibility.This isn't Gundam wing where machines the size of skyscrapers can just jump and fly or there are silly monarchs running around claiming that disarmament will keep the world safe.

I dont want to talk about LAMS .

Edited by T0RC4ED, 25 March 2012 - 04:17 AM.

[Brakkyn]

Jump jets should be a method for ascending or descending considerable heights or otherwise traversing difficult terrain. The obsession with the Death From Above maneuver is absurd. Should it be possible? Sure. But it certainly isn't something you will want to do.

Look at the 2009 "Phoenix" video--watch what the Jenner does. That is how jump jets should be utilized, in my opinion.

[Shai tan]

"The obsession with the Death From Above maneuver is absurd."

I used Jets all the time, and never did the DFA. And I never used Jets for the ways you think/state they should be used. I did use them for tactical Battle movement tho.

[metro]

merged.....

[guardian wolf]

Dlardrageth, on 24 March 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Actually, unless they changed it recently, it isn't tied to engine size really. "Reaction mass" is the key there. The supplementary reaction mass that is not provided by the engine and apparently necessary is directly tied to the number of thrusters mounted (or "jets", to make it simple). You can use a workaround of sorts for that (at least in advanced rules) by adding a "tank" with additional supplementary reaction mass. But that one of course would take up weight and crit space.

Edit: Just checked Sarna.Net, apparently that whole mechanic is detailed in the "Strategic Operations" rulebook.

*shrugs*I was just speculating, as it would seem that with that you would be able to force more reaction mass through the system, creating a higher pressure jet under fewer jets to increase velocity. It made sense in here *points to head* but if not in cannon, then I will submit.

[Belisarius1]

I was expecting this thread to be one enormous rant against jump sniping, so I was avoiding it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Regardless of the shenanigans a jumper can pull off in the TT, it needs to be clear that I am in a grounded machine that has been temporarily thrust into the air against its will. They can't feel like hovercraft floating lazily through the air like in some previous incarnations.

A little more turning than MW4 would be fine, as would longer flight times for lights, but there shouldn't be anything smooth about it. I'm also very much in favour of needing to feather a landing, as that makes jumping harder to do without actually reducing its effectiveness.

As to jump sniping, it should be difficult to place a shot due to camera shake while the jets are actually firing, but the hangtime should have a much more sedate idle-sway that you can shoot from.

Those would be my preferences, anyway.

Edited by Belisarius†, 25 March 2012 - 10:18 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I've always used JJ's either to clear terrain or to gain a tactical advantage ie either to get out of sight or to get behind another mech. I would envisage you turning on the ground to set your direction of jump with the ability to turn and kill your forward momentum on landing.
DFA should be a difficult but possible manouver, requiring good timing. I agree with Belisarius about poptarting.
Agility should be dependant on mech weight and number of jump jets. ie a Jenner should be able to jump much further/higher and turn more easily than a Highlander.
I do think that JJ's should be able to be used as they were in TT, but it should need some skill to do so.

[Tierloc]

docmorningstar, on 24 March 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

rambling and liking your own rambles is not the mark of high quality argument....

It wasn't an argument, it was a high quality discussion I was involved in 5 months ago. Let's see if I can still like my own posts..

Quote

You like this

Yep!

[SI The Joker]

DFA is alot like breakfast in bed.

It's a great concept in theory, but in reality - totally overrated.

[MaddMaxx]

I would like to think that whenever a Pilot of a large metallic object hits the Jump Thrust button, the next few seconds or minute would be pretty much consumed worrying about getting that hunk of Metal back on the ground in one piece, themselves along with it. The idea of Jumpkicking? *** is that. Charging another Mech via thrusting across the ground? Again. whaaaaat???

Sarna describes it pretty much exactly as one would expect. Go from A to B on an arc and fight the pig to a safe landing the whole way. And hope you picked a nice landing zone based on your radar map.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 26 March 2012 - 09:52 AM.