65 replies to this topic

[Helsbane]

Remove the charge timer from my gauss rifles. That way I can put 30 points of hurt on anything that flies.

Adding the charge timer to the gauss to decouple them from the PPC (which failed almost as hard as UI 2.0) actually took away one of the best anti-poptart weapons we had to counter it. Anyone can master the 'hold one key down, then release it while simultaneously pressing another' workaround, so the whole charge timer is just another failed bandaid fix.

Now, at this point you're thinking "well that will just lead to the gauss rifle / ppc meta we had before the charge mechanic". Well kids, I can rid us of that nightmare with no heat BS, no projectile speed alterations, and no charge mechanics.

Watch closely....

PPC based weapons are basically giant electromagnetic particle accelerators. Take the amount of EM distortion generated by firing those weapons and cause it to de-synch the coils in the gauss rifle. This would cause the gauss rifle to spend .75 seconds as the computer gets the coils firing in the correct order once again.

Gauss rifles are extremely power hungry as they fire, routing massive amounts of power through the coils of the weapon. This sudden shunt of energy through the gauss would disable the PPCs for, oh for sake of argument, let's say .75 seconds as the reactor recovers from the power dump to the gauss.

There, I separated the Gauss from the PPCs in a realistic fashion using nothing but the nature of each weapon as a means of doing so.

[Mycrus]

And flamers should have vectored thrust capabilities

[HATER 1]

it used to be a rule, otherwise us old TT players wouldn't just do it.

an empirical value for JJ's fuel/thrust duration and a need to place them symmetrically (the thrust ports are what cost weight and space) would only seem correct.

Helsbane, on 16 February 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Watch closely....

PPC based weapons are basically giant electromagnetic particle accelerators. Take the amount of EM distortion generated by firing those weapons and cause it to de-synch the coils in the gauss rifle. This would cause the gauss rifle to spend .75 seconds as the computer gets the coils firing in the correct order once again.

Gauss rifles are extremely power hungry as they fire, routing massive amounts of power through the coils of the weapon. This sudden shunt of energy through the gauss would disable the PPCs for, oh for sake of argument, let's say .75 seconds as the reactor recovers from the power dump to the gauss.

There, I separated the Gauss from the PPCs in a realistic fashion using nothing but the nature of each weapon as a means of doing so.

This is the best, most 'realistic' thing i have heard about that particular subject, ever. Unfortunately, our common sense is uncommon, because _____________, and this wasnt a PPC/Gauss thread.

[TehSBGX]

I make JJs Symetrical out OCD.

[Bagheera]

While cool as a fun idea it doesn't do much until JJs are tuned so that mounting 1 doesn't do much of anything, and the stock quantity are needed for effective use, with those few mechs that can mount more than the stock build get a little bonus thrust and duration.

But burn time needs to be a function of # of jets installed as well as thrust in order for this to work out. No, this would not really be a big deal for lights, and would affect assault builds the most due to the weight of the jets.

[Deathlike]

Asakara, on 15 February 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Poor Jenner-D poptarts.

I use 2 JJs, so, no dice?

Khobai, on 15 February 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

no thanks the last thing we need is more bizarre rules like ghost heat.

if jumpjets are too good just nerf them. dont come up with some cute non-straightforward way to try and balance them.

I'm not bothered with the idea/concept, but perhaps people are taking JJs for granted a little.

There were times where I was damaged enough in where I put the JJs, only to lose the ability to JJ soon after (usually MGs were involved). I think that this change although not exactly the most physics motivated, would serve as an indirect buff/requirement (if anything, it is a perfect "lazy" change for PGI) to require more than 1 JJ on every JJ capable mech.

With that said, this would actually affect ONE specific mech that PGI is selling... the BJ-1 Champion. So, they would have to address that while they are at it.

I've heard the "crits" whine considering that the AC20 is the only thing that eats crits like nothing, and you still have legs (do you ALWAYS have to fill them with ammo?) so there's really not much of a balance issue there. On the other hand... people have complained about the ECM hardpoint change affecting their LRM based loadouts.

In any case, this change is kinda like having an AMS hardpoint. Is it really that big a deal? (Although, I'd rather be able to put AMS in other parts of the mech.)

Edited by Deathlike, 16 February 2014 - 05:46 PM.

[mindwarp]

I'm noticing people saying a jump jet lets you jump 30m up. Not quite true. While a tabletop hex is 30m across, and elevation level is only 6m. A single jump jet could move you 30m forwards, but only 6m up. To go any higher than 6m, you needed multiple jumpjets.

[Mister Blastman]

Rhent, on 15 February 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

It would be an indirect nerf to poptarting now by requiring a secondary JJ in most configurations unless the developers allow them to have CT JJ slots for ceratin models or builds.

Making a Highlander be forced to use 2 JJs over 1 isn't a nerf. It won't phase them at all. It won't matter.

Why? I use 2 JJs all the time for giggles and easily score over 1000 all the time.

[Gladewolf]

Deathlike, on 16 February 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

I use 2 JJs, so, no dice?

Well I use a min three and a max 5...so dice. "Well it won't affect MY play style." is not a valid argument for a community. If jump jets worked the way they should, you wouldn't get away with "just 2" either. This plan stabs light pilots in the eye that build responsibly maneuverable mechs. That's not right. This plan was put forth for 2 mechs...not the Spider, not the Jenner and not the Firestarter...it's a bad plan for that reason.

[Zerberoff]

http://en.wikipedia....%26_Voss_BV_141

Symmetry is overrated.

[C E Dwyer]

Rhent, on 15 February 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

1st) Limit where JJ locations are on a mech by number. For example, lets say the highlander 733C has 2 JJ RL, 2 JJ LL, 1 JJ CT.

2nd) For JJ to be placed in other locations besides the CT, they must be paired. If you have 1 JJ in the LL, then you have to have 1 JJ in RL, otherwise you can't save your configuration.

It would be an indirect nerf to poptarting now by requiring a secondary JJ in most configurations unless the developers allow them to have CT JJ slots for ceratin models or builds.

Its a start, but also making a minimum required amount 1 for lights and mediums, 2 for heavies and assaults

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 February 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

On TT A Highlander did not get more than 3 JJ. unless you stuck in a bigger engine. Why PGI broke that Canon construction rule I don't get, but if Highlanders could only boost a max of 45M, maybe Pop Trats wouldn't be so strong? Its only a guess I don't really play that style so I don't know for sure.

Most builds use 2 jets on a tart. Limiting it to 3 would do nothing.

Edited by 3rdworld, 17 February 2014 - 06:09 AM.

[Gladewolf]

3rdworld, on 17 February 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

Most builds use 2 jets on a tart. Limiting it to 3 would do nothing.

Additionally, Neither Assault in question has a CT weapons slots that I can recall(I haven't driven all of the assaults...as I don't like them anyway), This plan is a minor inconvenience for the mechs it's aiming to punish and a punch in the face to several light mech designs.

[Andross Deverow]

Coralld, on 15 February 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

I can get behind this, do this, and fix it so all JJ only provide the 6m jump like they are suppose to and not the single JJ that gives a 3 to 4 times the normal height we have now and then we would be on our way to JJ balance.

Exactly what I have been saying. one jumpjet should not be able to lift any mech its maximum jump height.

If that 733C pilot wants to jump snipe... Fine, make him equip more jumpjets at 2 tons each, this will make him/her have to think about what they want to sacrifice in order to jump higher.
- Less big guns?
- Slower engine?
- Less heat sinks?
- Less ammo?
- Less armor?

I think this is what would work, I feel it should be applied to all mech classes from lights all the way to assaults.

Regards,

[Joseph Mallan]

Zerberoff, on 17 February 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....%26_Voss_BV_141

Symmetry is overrated.

Ever an Exception Sir... Good find!

3rdworld, on 17 February 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

Most builds use 2 jets on a tart. Limiting it to 3 would do nothing.

So long as 2 ar in the CT or one on either side torso or leg... you are correct.

[Deathlike]

Gladewolf, on 16 February 2014 - 09:07 PM, said:

Well I use a min three and a max 5...so dice. "Well it won't affect MY play style." is not a valid argument for a community. If jump jets worked the way they should, you wouldn't get away with "just 2" either. This plan stabs light pilots in the eye that build responsibly maneuverable mechs. That's not right. This plan was put forth for 2 mechs...not the Spider, not the Jenner and not the Firestarter...it's a bad plan for that reason.

I'm personally not bothered if it was changed in some way (because, it is kinda needed).

On the other hand, the issue with "only needing 1 JJ" defeats the overall purpose of having multi-JJ options. For your reference, it actually takes 2 JJs to reach the citadel platform from the water. That is my personal benchmark (it's not doable with 1 JJ). I'm sure others don't care for my personal anecdote, but there really needs to be a tangible impact/benefit for equipping more (or the reverse of being less beneficial for just carrying "the bare minimum").

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Just make it so that you either carry all the JJs allowed or none. As a medium pilot it doesnt worry me.
Also cut down the agility bonus for heavies and assaults so they are not so good at jump brawling.

[Gladewolf]

Deathlike, on 17 February 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I'm personally not bothered if it was changed in some way (because, it is kinda needed).

On the other hand, the issue with "only needing 1 JJ" defeats the overall purpose of having multi-JJ options. For your reference, it actually takes 2 JJs to reach the citadel platform from the water. That is my personal benchmark (it's not doable with 1 JJ). I'm sure others don't care for my personal anecdote, but there really needs to be a tangible impact/benefit for equipping more (or the reverse of being less beneficial for just carrying "the bare minimum").

Your benchmark only works if that first jump jet maintains it's current power, for sharing purposes...MY benchmark is escaping non-jumpers and mechs like yours in Alpine by being able to burst all the way up a mountainside...which is min 4(3 if you time it just rightfor some of the smaller hills)..but I use the fifth if I have the tonnage, and if i'm struggling to make it fit, i'll go with 3. This also enables me to chase spiders through most terrain...which you simply can't do with 2 jets, but none of this answers or deals with the core issue..Why should a Jenner/Spider/Firestarter pilot, not be able to use their hardpoints to satisfy some stupid vendetta against 2 assault mechs? No there are other ways to deal with this that don't involve making up rules that never exsisted in TT to begin with.

[Zerberoff]

Gladewolf, on 17 February 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

Your benchmark only works if that first jump jet maintains it's current power, for sharing purposes...MY benchmark is escaping non-jumpers and mechs like yours in Alpine by being able to burst all the way up a mountainside...which is min 4(3 if you time it just rightfor some of the smaller hills)..but I use the fifth if I have the tonnage, and if i'm struggling to make it fit, i'll go with 3. This also enables me to chase spiders through most terrain...which you simply can't do with 2 jets, but none of this answers or deals with the core issue..Why should a Jenner/Spider/Firestarter pilot, not be able to use their hardpoints to satisfy some stupid vendetta against 2 assault mechs? No there are other ways to deal with this that don't involve making up rules that never exsisted in TT to begin with.

I dont like when people point at the TT-Rules as reference because they simply dont work within a PC Simulation but i absolutely agree that we dont need to take out the Nerv-hammer and use it on everything that has such a Minor impact to most of the Playerbase just to satisfy those who cant deal with certain builds.

[stjobe]

Zerberoff, on 17 February 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....%26_Voss_BV_141

Symmetry is overrated.

While that is a nice example of asymmetric design, you might be interested to know that the BV-141 had symmetrical lift (so it was stable in the roll axis), and the difference in thrust and drag symmetry (which otherwise would have lead to instability in the yaw axis) was easily countered with trimming; i.e. the design had symmetrical thrust.

In less words: It looks asymmetrical, but from an aerodynamic (thrust/drag/lift) perspective it is not.