75 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

So I took the time to listen to the actual comment made by BB in the podcast to determine for myself what was originally written in the OP correct or not.

Her comment is at 60.33 and she said, "You're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets."

This is contradictory to the lore and the TT mechanics as well as the early versions of MW:O. Yes, I am one of those people that have been playing MW:O since closed beta and seen the various iterations of the jump jets. The best iteration, that closely mimics the lore and TT, was right after the game went to open beta on how the jump jets handled. You did have vectored thrust and momentum based upon which way you were facing, so it was quite doable to do 360's and more with a mech. The only problem with it was that you only needed 1 jump jet which is incorrect because it should have required the maximum amount of jump jets to do it.

I even took a video of a match in my C4 Cat at the time.



If PGI had kept that iteration while requiring to have the maximum number of jump jets they would have gotten it right.

[B B Wolfe]

James The Fox Dixon, on 13 July 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

So I took the time to listen to the actual comment made by BB in the podcast to determine for myself what was originally written in the OP correct or not.

Her comment is at 60.33 and she said, "You're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets."

This is contradictory to the lore and the TT mechanics as well as the early versions of MW:O. Yes, I am one of those people that have been playing MW:O since closed beta and seen the various iterations of the jump jets. The best iteration, that closely mimics the lore and TT, was right after the game went to open beta on how the jump jets handled. You did have vectored thrust and momentum based upon which way you were facing, so it was quite doable to do 360's and more with a mech. The only problem with it was that you only needed 1 jump jet which is incorrect because it should have required the maximum amount of jump jets to do it.

I even took a video of a match in my C4 Cat at the time.



If PGI had kept that iteration while requiring to have the maximum number of jump jets they would have gotten it right.

Again, since you're not big into reading, in the current implementation, you do not have magical forward momentum from a standstill.

[James The Fox Dixon]

B B Wolfe, on 13 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Again, since you're not big into reading, in the current implementation, you do not have magical forward momentum from a standstill.

Again, you're not big into owning up to an error that you made. I listened to your comment and nowhere in your comment in the podcast did you say, "Under the current implementation, you're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets." No, you said, "You're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets." There is a huge difference between the two. Admit you made a mistake in your podcast comment with the phrasing and move on.

[Corvus Antaka]

James The Fox Dixon, on 12 July 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

She's incorrect since in the TT a mech with JJs must move in any direction when using them. This means movement as well as being vectored. I highly recommend that the developers of this game actually play the TT version before they come up with wild and incorrect ideas like this one.

This. Nevermind we are no where near btech hieght values and JJ are nearly worthless for dodging LRMS or SSRMs or for really functional DFA.

[B B Wolfe]

James The Fox Dixon, on 13 July 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Again, you're not big into owning up to an error that you made. I listened to your comment and nowhere in your comment in the podcast did you say, "Under the current implementation, you're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets." No, you said, "You're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets." There is a huge difference between the two. Admit you made a mistake in your podcast comment with the phrasing and move on.

Right after you admit to failing at listening comprehension.

[James The Fox Dixon]

B B Wolfe, on 13 July 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Right after you admit to failing at listening comprehension.

The problem is that I didn't fail at listening comprehension. I quoted you word for word from the podcast, so either you're imagining that you added in "Under the current implementation" or you made an error since your response was directed at another cast member about a Jenner being stopped by a pebble and couldn't jump forward to clear the obstruction. They were complaining about jump jets not working correctly while your response was, "You're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets."

How that's for listening comprehension?

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 13 July 2013 - 09:27 AM.

[B B Wolfe]

James The Fox Dixon, on 13 July 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

How that's for listening comprehension?

Abject failure.

[James The Fox Dixon]

B B Wolfe, on 13 July 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Abject failure.

Here's a transcript of what was said surrounding your comment. I have notated where you spoke at. However, I have no clue who the other two voices are in the conversation.

Quote

I think right now the bugs in the system are skewing our opinions of it. Like if they fix those things, we won't be getting hung up on **** that you can't even see, but you know I think will fix a lot of things and make it a little bit easier to get a big picture on it.

Well, also, I was thinking with the mechs... the jump jets you get stymied, you stop, you jump, you go straight up,

*Interruption* Oh I hate it... I hate it...

You go back to where you started. Even if you had that fraction of an inch forward movement you at least to get up the hill right?

Yeah, yeah... I hear ya there. I was jumping around in a Jenner last night... me in a Jenner...

BB: You couldn't run up and then you expect to move forward...

*Interruption* If you don't have forward mom... basically there's no forward momentum with your jump jets.

BB: You're not supposed to have forward momentum with your jump jets.

Well...

The problem is that if you get defeated by ********

You get stopped...

You're misremembering what you've said since the audio is quite clear that you think that jump jets should not have forward momentum. Never mind the fact, the jump jets are supposed to have momentum in any direction regardless of mech facing.

I know now never to listen to NGNG podcast ever again since y'all act like prima donnas that can do no wrong.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 13 July 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[B B Wolfe]

James The Fox Dixon, on 13 July 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Here's a transcript of what was said surrounding your comment. I have notated where you spoke at. However, I have no clue who the other two voices are in the conversation.



You're misremembering what you've said since the audio is quite clear that you think that jump jets should not have forward momentum. Never mind the fact, the jump jets are supposed to have momentum in any direction regardless of mech facing.

I know now never to listen to NGNG podcast ever again since y'all act like prima donnas that can do no wrong.

Thank you.

[Corvus Antaka]

Its really not constructive to argue or point fingers..

The issue is very simply that jumpjets are still quite lacking in the game. Movement penalties have helped, but overall jumpjet design remains weak and flawed.

Having a forward directional thrust in the direction legs are facing would give more air control, combined with more lift based on # of jumpjets this would make jets more fun and exciting and actually useful for DFA...which remains the #1 lacking and missing feature in the game today.

There is 0 need for straight up and down jumpjets. all it does in encourage jump sniping peek a boo and create bad gameplay, and there is not 1 good reason to have jumpjets just thrust you straight up and down.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 13 July 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 13 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Its really not constructive to argue or point fingers..

The issue is very simply that jumpjets are still quite lacking in the game. Movement penalties have helped, but overall jumpjet design remains weak and flawed.

Having a forward directional thrust in the direction legs are facing would give more air control, combined with more lift based on # of jumpjets this would make jets more fun and exciting and actually useful for DFA...which remains the #1 lacking and missing feature in the game today.

There is 0 need for straight up and down jumpjets. all it does in encourage jump sniping peek a boo and create bad gameplay, and there is not 1 good reason to have jumpjets just thrust you straight up and down.

Well since we are back to topic.

I agree with the first part of your post. JJs are simple to fix. Just make it so you gain forward thrust if you press the "W" key and backward thrust if you press the "S" key. You rotate using the "A" and "D" key just like you do not but pressing "W" or "S" aways causes you to thrust in whatever direction the mech is pointing.

I don't agree about the not being able to jump straight up for multiple reasons and it isn't because I am a poptart. Sometimes for example, I just want to peek over a ridge or hill but not move over it. Other times I might want to briefly jump straight up just to throw off my enemies aim.

Lastly, even beyond all that, I disagree that peek-a-boo sniping is bad game play. It might be annoying but it is anything but bad game play. What it is, is using your JJs to gain a tactical advantage and those tactical advantages are the reason you mount 10 tons of JJs on your Heavy Metal, rather than 10 more tons of weapons. There is a tradeoff for that tactical flexibility always.

[Corvus Antaka]

Viktor Drake, on 13 July 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

I don't agree about the not being able to jump straight up for multiple reasons and it isn't because I am a poptart. Sometimes for example, I just want to peek over a ridge or hill but not move over it. Other times I might want to briefly jump straight up just to throw off my enemies aim.

All you would need to do with jumpjets that angled you forward would be to turn your legs 90 degrees and jumpstrafe sideways.

this makes shooting harder for the jumper, and equally makes hitting him harder for the enemy, and eliminates the straight up down which is primarily abuseable because jets recharge so fast you can jump, fire, drop, jump fire drop as fast as your jets recycle.

Sadly right now there is no tradeoff, almost every mech with JJ I use has 1-2 jumpjets as this is plenty to jumpsnipe and maintain cover between shots as well as climb any area that matters on any map.

primarily the removal of straight up/down jets removes the ability to fire as fast as your guns recycle since sideways jumping requires more cover and pilot awareness to sorroundings and the jumper needs a ton more room to achieve the same result, as well as being forced to reposition often - making the entire endeavor significantly more skill requiring than peeking up and down behind an object.

Further this would let us have more "fun" jumpjets with bigger airtimes as jets would really need a lot more skill and consideration to use. right now big airtime cant really be granted because the straight up and down would just mean firing straight up even higher, more dropdown time, back to jumpsniping gayness once again.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 13 July 2013 - 08:16 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 13 July 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

All you would need to do with jumpjets that angled you forward would be to turn your legs 90 degrees and jumpstrafe sideways.

this makes shooting harder for the jumper, and equally makes hitting him harder for the enemy, and eliminates the straight up down which is primarily abuseable because jets recharge so fast you can jump, fire, drop, jump fire drop as fast as your jets recycle.

Sadly right now there is no tradeoff, almost every mech with JJ I use has 1-2 jumpjets as this is plenty to jumpsnipe and maintain cover between shots as well as climb any area that matters on any map.

primarily the removal of straight up/down jets removes the ability to fire as fast as your guns recycle since sideways jumping requires more cover and pilot awareness to sorroundings and the jumper needs a ton more room to achieve the same result, as well as being forced to reposition often - making the entire endeavor significantly more skill requiring than peeking up and down behind an object.

Further this would let us have more "fun" jumpjets with bigger airtimes as jets would really need a lot more skill and consideration to use. right now big airtime cant really be granted because the straight up and down would just mean firing straight up even higher, more dropdown time, back to jumpsniping gayness once again.

Well one thing I will agree on is that 1-2 JJs shouldn't be useful at all. That feature is broken as hell in my opinion. I would make it so you had to have a minimum of 3 to get enough lift to break free of the ground. In fact I can't think of one JJ capable mech in any TRO that has less than 3 JJs.

But again I disagree with not being able to jump straight up and down. For example, lets say I wanted to clear a really high cliff wall in Canyon Network. I would just jump straight up till I got to the proper height then add just a tiny bit of forward thrust at the peak of the jump to step on the top of the cliff. If all I have is forward thrust, all I am going to do is faceplant in the side of the cliff. You basically have to have up and down to get height. Honestly you need both.

[Corvus Antaka]

Viktor Drake, on 15 July 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Well one thing I will agree on is that 1-2 JJs shouldn't be useful at all. That feature is broken as hell in my opinion. I would make it so you had to have a minimum of 3 to get enough lift to break free of the ground. In fact I can't think of one JJ capable mech in any TRO that has less than 3 JJs.

But again I disagree with not being able to jump straight up and down. For example, lets say I wanted to clear a really high cliff wall in Canyon Network. I would just jump straight up till I got to the proper height then add just a tiny bit of forward thrust at the peak of the jump to step on the top of the cliff. If all I have is forward thrust, all I am going to do is faceplant in the side of the cliff. You basically have to have up and down to get height. Honestly you need both.

Sort of..if you get the initial angle thrust you dont need the final angle thrust since the angle would bring you over the cliff too.

[TrentTheWanderer]

B B Wolfe, on 13 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Again, since you're not big into reading, in the current implementation, you do not have magical forward momentum from a standstill.

If you're supplying all of the joules of thrust directly from a fusion reactor, is it really "magic"? Like, in the wizarding sense. Obviously any time you're using a fusion reactor it is "Magic!". You know, like a sunrise over the ocean.

[MaddMaxx]

James The Fox Dixon, on 12 July 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Then the NGNG staff have to play the TT or at least have an understanding of the source material to do proper reporting. Either way, this is a failure on their part.

And Stackpoles "tumbling" and "kneeling" (prone is not kneeling btw) are TT canon material? Really. Played some TT and never got a "tumble roll" without some fudging...