59 replies to this topic

[Thomas Dziegielewski]

I'm trying to convince my designers that this idea is worthwhile.

Should your actual mass affect jump jet height?

By this I mean if I make a 58.5t Catapult which is a 65t mech, should it go 10% higher because I dropped 10% of my mass?

So that players who can't get up a building because they are too fat can lower their loadout tonnage a bit and get up to the location they want the next time.

And some will be able to create some useless mechs that launch themselves into orbit. Which we can cap maybe to a max bonus of 50%.

And for a later feature maybe if your arm is blown off use that extra weight loss as well.

And its like a 30min job.

[Sh4nk0h0l1c]

I think the whole jumping mechanics could use some tweaking...

A heavy mech with 4 class III Jumjets should lift of more quickly, don't you think?

BTW, I am with you on this!

[Maxtaltos]

Obviously if you have less weight for the same jump jet output, then yes you would be able to go higher.
So I vote yes.

[General Taskeen]

Sure that would be neat Thomas.

But, also, first, pretty please Dev(s), can jump jets make a Mech reach its full intended vertical/horiztonal distances, with full weight and all default rated JJ's that come with it (in a short time, rather than expending fuel and jetting around so slowly). That is to say JJ's need tweaking or a rework.

[Adridos]

I'm indifferent about this.

On one hand, you'll certainly give JJs a lot more space in the game and allow hundreds of new customisation options.

On the other, there will be pop-tarting configs once appropriate mechs make it in and they might do some damage to balance.

[StalaggtIKE]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 08 January 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I'm trying to convince my designers that this idea is worthwhile.

Should your actual mass affect jump jet height?

By this I mean if I make a 58.5t Catapult which is a 65t mech, should it go 10% higher because I dropped 10% of my mass?

So that players who can't get up a building because they are too fat can lower their loadout tonnage a bit and get up to the location they want the next time.

And some will be able to create some useless mechs that launch themselves into orbit. Which we can cap maybe to a max bonus of 50%.

And for a later feature maybe if your arm is blown off use that extra weight loss as well.

Definitely. I can't agree any further. Force = mass * acceleration. A stronger engine on a lighter chassis should move faster. Running speed should also be affected!

[VXJaeger]

I voted no.
Reason: Keep It Simple Stupids.

[General Taskeen]

Adridos, on 08 January 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

On the other, there will be pop-tarting configs once appropriate mechs make it in and they might do some damage to balance.

MW:LL solved pop-tarting easily

• Mech HUD shake on ascent - Reduced the amount of time the pilot has to locate and fire at a target to the descending arc of a jump
  
• Slower Jump Jet energy recharge - Increased delay before JJ energy starts to recharge. This reduces the frequency the pilot may poptart.
  
• Jump Jets produce more heat - Another balance change to reduce the effectiveness of Alpha strike poptarters.

The solution is easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

Edited by General Taskeen, 08 January 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Sandslice]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 08 January 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I'm trying to convince my designers that this idea is worthwhile.

Should your actual mass affect jump jet height?

By this I mean if I make a 58.5t Catapult which is a 65t mech, should it go 10% higher because I dropped 10% of my mass?

So that players who can't get up a building because they are too fat can lower their loadout tonnage a bit and get up to the location they want the next time.

And some will be able to create some useless mechs that launch themselves into orbit. Which we can cap maybe to a max bonus of 50%.

And for a later feature maybe if your arm is blown off use that extra weight loss as well.

I doubt we'll see useful orbital hoppers, for a few reasons.
1. Jump jets are capped by chassis:
-Spider: Will have 8
-Jenner: 5, even though the engine can support 7.
-Raven: I think there's a jumping Raven that can also jump 5, but I don't run Ravens.
-Catapult and Cataphract: 4
-Highlander: Will have 3

2. In theory, if TT rules hold, jump would also be capped by floor(engine rating / gross 'Mech weight,) which means that down-engining a Spider should reduce the number of jump jets it can mount. I haven't tested this though.

3. To reach 50% bonus lift without it being an effect of damage, you'd have to reduce your effective weight by 50% - which for most 'Mechs would require a decrease of engine. For example, a Jenner-D's "warload"* (weapons and armour) at stock config is only 11 tons. Going to endo saves 1.75 tons (12.75) and going to ferro either increases armour, or saves half a ton at a slight loss of armour (the K does exactly this, using ferro's weight savings for CASE.)

All that said, it's a rather interesting idea, and one worth pursuing... after jump jet lift is fixed.

*Technically, jump jets count as part of the warload, but are required here because we're discussing their use.

[Crimson Fenris]

First, give JJ more punch to be able to move vertically much faster. Ajust the fuel duration accordingly to the number of JJ.

Then, apply the mass modifications, but i seriously doubt that it will be useful, as pretty much all mechs are fully loaded... rare exceptions appears on some loadouts, but that's often a matter of about a half a ton, so will not change the jump capacity.

At least, make the spider jumping 240 meters with 8 JJ, like the canon one... For comparison, you made the Jenner's original 150 meters jump capacity to a mere 45 meters...
Remember the original trailer of this game ?

Please, fix the jump jets and jump heigths first before other modifications.

[Zyllos]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 08 January 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I'm trying to convince my designers that this idea is worthwhile.

Should your actual mass affect jump jet height?

By this I mean if I make a 58.5t Catapult which is a 65t mech, should it go 10% higher because I dropped 10% of my mass?

So that players who can't get up a building because they are too fat can lower their loadout tonnage a bit and get up to the location they want the next time.

And some will be able to create some useless mechs that launch themselves into orbit. Which we can cap maybe to a max bonus of 50%.

And for a later feature maybe if your arm is blown off use that extra weight loss as well.

And its like a 30min job.

Why is anyone entertaining the idea of lowering the weight of a mech effects rules?

A mech should ALWAYS be at 100% of your weight class.

While I think the JJ mechanics need work, this is the wrong way to go about it. It does not make any sense within the rules and the TT game. If you have a 65t mech, why only use up to 60t? Run a 60t mech then!

Edited by Zyllos, 08 January 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[ObsidianSpectre]

I think it's a good idea. Especially if it's cheap - do it. I can't see myself every using it, but it makes sense and maybe someone will figure out a way to make it useful.

Also, I wanted to say that seeing a staff member making this thread is great - do more things like this!

[Bors Mistral]

Yes. We will take more or less anything that will go above the current almost-useless implementation.

In the end though...
- We want more lift.... like a mech that can actually jump on top of the tallest building in Frozen City.
- We want the ability to influence the trajectory while in the air (in a sensibly limited way).
- We want Jump-Jets to be fun and useful.

[StalaggtIKE]

VXJaeger, on 08 January 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

I voted no.
Reason: Keep It Simple Stupids.

Oh ye, of little faith.

[Chou Senwan]

I like the idea. Of course, I don't think JJs are useful right now, aside from the "use one to pivot faster" trick. I'm hoping they are restored to earlier functionality.

Someone pointed out that even if jump elevations were set to match the tabletop game, the elevation differences of obstacles in MWO are sometimes in the range of 10+ levels. The terrain is huge and grandiose, but current jump jet heights are only appropriate for worlds full of McDonald's and other 1-story buildings.

I would love it if JJs worked thusly:

* Hard to pop-tart. The screen shakes a bit when you jump, akin to getting hit by an AC 5 or something. So you can get a clear shot once you kill acceleration.

* Some ability to move laterally, even if it's just 5 or 10 meters, to help stick the landing. Likewise, if you're at the base of a building, you should be able to ascend, then float forward to land on the roof. Right now you either need a big running start, or you have to run into the building and scrape your way up the side while jump jetting.

* Faster launch. 3 seconds of holding the spacebar should get you to the top of your 'safe' jump height. If you want to travel farther and don't care as much about height (like if you're crossing the river in River City), you can feather the spacebar. After you reach full 'safe' height, you should still have some thrust for maneuvering and soft-landing.


I really appreciate that you asked our opinion, man. Keep up the good work.

[Lokust Davion]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 08 January 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

And for a later feature maybe if your arm is blown off use that extra weight loss as well.

Meaning that if I lost both my cat's ears in battle I would be able to jump higher than normal? That would be totally awesome!

[Das Wudone]

i voted yes. also it should increase jump jet height if u used up a significant amount of ammo.

[Edustaja]

No. While a cool and realistic idea, the mech construction rules do not really take this into account. I would run with chassis nominal weight period. Keep in mind that the heavier mechs have heavier jumpjets to achieve similar height and length for equal amount of jump capability.

[Cache]

I voted no. For now. Same reason as others: KISS.

Doing so also would open the argument for increasing ground speed when you lose tonnage... and I don't want to go there.

[Solis Obscuri]

I prefer to treat a 65 ton 'mech as always being a 65 ton 'mech, as per CBT rules.