Edited by XX Sulla XX, 30 March 2014 - 12:14 AM.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3ae9/b3ae9cf8cfed3e06df6984fcf2a08c460eab065d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/47bd9/47bd953a06d2e86d69b1921ef758ed87e53c9026" alt=""
Jump Jets As An Upgrade?
Started by TyGeR STD, Mar 28 2014 09:58 PM
24 replies to this topic
#21
Posted 30 March 2014 - 12:12 AM
No need for it. The height and turning speed you get from jump jets should be directly related to the number you have. Having only 1 jump jet should not be of much use. Having the max amount for your mech should give you good height and turning speed. They have done some of this but it needs tweeked more. Buff the max jump jets a little and nurf the lower end. Make it more of an exponential curve.
#22
Posted 30 March 2014 - 01:40 AM
Doesnt fix the problem. Just because you force mechs to take the full number of jumpjets doesnt make jumpjets balanced. Mechs with jumpjets are still better than mechs without jumpjets.
Jumpjets need to have a downside. For example, the Catapult has 6 weapon hardpoints compared to the Jagermech's and Thunderbolt's 8 weapon hardpoints. And that seems fairly balanced. Simiarly, Highlanders/Victors/Shadowhawks/Firestarters should all get slapped with a hardpoint penalty for having jumpjets.
Jumpjets need to have a downside. For example, the Catapult has 6 weapon hardpoints compared to the Jagermech's and Thunderbolt's 8 weapon hardpoints. And that seems fairly balanced. Simiarly, Highlanders/Victors/Shadowhawks/Firestarters should all get slapped with a hardpoint penalty for having jumpjets.
#23
Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:37 AM
Khobai, on 30 March 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:
Doesnt fix the problem. Just because you force mechs to take the full number of jumpjets doesnt make jumpjets balanced. Mechs with jumpjets are still better than mechs without jumpjets.
Weight can be as important to designs as hardpoints.
The concept is interesting because it brings the decision point from between non-jump chassis and jump-capable chassis, to non-jump chassis and jump-capable chassis paying a jet tax. Right now people choose non-jump chassis on mostly subjective terms.
Champion 'Mechs could be grandfathered as special variants, while stock configurations would be unaffected (Griffins and Wolverines could be set to 5 max instead of 7, impacting very few).
#24
Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:02 PM
What PGI should do is have the ability (via MOdules) to let any mech in the game have Jump Jets...
Before you all cry HELL NO.... How about this as balance..
It cost 2 Modules Slots and a CRAP TON of money to be able to do this... and your mech has a nice new backbackhunch (i.e. bigger hitboxes)...
Please? My Misery Stalker really wants to JJ..
PLEASE................
Before you all cry HELL NO.... How about this as balance..
It cost 2 Modules Slots and a CRAP TON of money to be able to do this... and your mech has a nice new backbackhunch (i.e. bigger hitboxes)...
Please? My Misery Stalker really wants to JJ..
PLEASE................
#25
Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:43 PM
I prefer that they fix jump jets on an exponential return curve so that one jump jet is horrible.
The problem with this suggestion is that it royally bones light mechs, particularly those that can mount a lot of JJ's...
I know on my light mechs I run a minimum of 4 but having to run 6 will significantly limit my builds.
The problem with this suggestion is that it royally bones light mechs, particularly those that can mount a lot of JJ's...
I know on my light mechs I run a minimum of 4 but having to run 6 will significantly limit my builds.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users