Jump to content

- - - - -

Jump Jet Update Feedback


510 replies to this topic

#1 Kyle Polulak

    <member/>

  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 584 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:36 AM

Please leave us your feedback on the incoming Jump Jet update!

View PostPaul Inouye, on 08 July 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

A Jump Jet Update

We are updating Jump Jets to bring the gameplay aspects surrounding them back into line where they should be. Again, it is very important to remember that Jump Jets are for maneuvering purposes only and not meant to make a 'Mech fly around the environment.

In order for us to reach our goal, two new aspects have been updated to Jump Jets.

First: Jump Jet Heat.

Table Top (TT) rules add 3 heat instantaneously upon using any number of Jump Jets. Now naturally we can't do that without severely penalizing anyone using a Jump Jet no matter the duration or how many are being fired. What we're doing for MWO is creating a baseline Heat Per Second for a single Jump Jet. This single Jump Jet causes a maxed Single Heat Sink 'Mech to hit around 3% heat. Adding 4 more Jump Jets will take this same 'Mech to around 10% heat after a full burn.

What this does is not cause a 'Mech to overheat.. but essentially it will stop the 'Mech from cooling down while Jump Jets are in use.

Second: Jump Jet Thrust

There are 2 aspects to how Jump Jets lift your 'Mech off the ground. The first is the initial boost that pushes your 'Mech off the ground and slightly forward. The second aspect is how much each Jump Jet adds to your total height gain through Jump Jet use. These numbers have now been updated to reflect what was mentioned above about Jump Jets being used for navigational purposes over rough terrain. The fact that a single Jump Jet was producing almost the same amount of thrust as 4 Jump Jets on the same 'Mech obviously didn't make sense.

Jump Jet's are now doing much less compounded lift than before. The initial boost is also providing less vertical lift than before. This means that across the board, all 'Mechs will be not be jumping as high as they were before. It is still possible to do snap turns using any number of Jump Jets, this change only affects vertical displacement.

Posted Image


Why This Change is Needed

The combination of Fall Damage, Jump Jet Heat, Jump Jet Thrust changes culminate into a change in gameplay dynamics in keeping 'Mechs feeling heavy and more tank-like. The way everything was playing out was that 'Mechs felt more like light and agile exoskeletons.

One common misconception that I've seen concerning these changes is that this was supposed to "fix" the "pop-tart meta". That is not the case. Just to be clear, we are not trying to remove pop-tarting from MWO. It is a valid, tactical means of play. The way we want to address it is from a cost per performance view, not eliminate it. The changes in this update do affect the pop-tart meta builds but only by increasing costs in tonnage, space and having to adapt to less vertical thrust.


#2 shad0w4life

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,131 posts
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:50 AM

I like it, should reduce the number of I broke my mechs legs falling 20M fix it threads
For some reason people seem to think the mechs are human height when in reality their foot when walking is a few meters in the air already.

I guess if Canyon was like the Grand Canyon they may understand the scale of things, but with the way cars and buildings look it really doesn't give a sense of how big they really are.

Edited by shad0w4life, 08 July 2014 - 11:52 AM.


#3 unFearing

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 80 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:56 AM

Hoping beyond hope this correctly and/or effectively brings poptarts more in line with the "cost per performance" idea, unlike the current fall damage modification, which I am personally very pleased to hear fellow light pilots on the battlefield will be able to [soon] return to their more aggressive play styles. Then I can practice shooting Jenners and Firestarters out of the air more often...

#4 Name140704

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:56 AM

Curious to see how the comp players adjust & adapt once they work the kinks out.

#5 soapyfrog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 409 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:58 AM

Your graph is not encouraging. Looks to me like 1 or 2 jumpjets is still going to be a way better deal than 4 or 5 jumpjets.

#6 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,166 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:59 AM

Change the weapon load outs, pop tart meta is so viable because the mech design makes a nice handy shield arm with that load out, changing it around to give the same firepower but losing the shield side would make it more dangerous, and not removing it either.

As to heat in JJ I'm rather meh so what.

But its nice to see it written down officially, that you don't want to remove a tactic that even the people that use it well want 'fixed' because its dull.

The diagram doesn't show any numbers other than Jumpjets so its not very informative, but if the graph is accurate, it seems its only worth putting 1, 6, or 12 JJ's on your mechs, from the visual estimate

Edited by Cathy, 08 July 2014 - 12:04 PM.


#7 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,846 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:02 PM

Wait, why are all mechs getting reduced lift? Including the ones that use the maximum number of jets they can carry? My Thors and Novas, using all 5 of their hardwired jets, already felt like goodyear blimps that struggled to jump up even the most modestly sized hills.

Edited by FupDup, 08 July 2014 - 12:02 PM.


#8 dangerzone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 295 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in a F14-Tomcat

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:05 PM

Hmm. Not bad actually. Please continue the good news, PGI! :P
Posted Image

#9 gunghoblazes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • LocationEverywhere at once.

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:05 PM

Wonder how much more this will affect my summoner...

#10 wanderer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 11,152 posts
  • LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:06 PM

Doesn't fix poptarting, doesn't simplify how jump jets work. Doesn't do anything but obfuscate the game further.

How is this much of a fix, really?

#11 OznerpaG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 977 posts
  • LocationToronto, Canada

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:06 PM

View PostNikolai Lubkiewicz, on 08 July 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

This single Jump Jet causes a maxed Single Heat Sink 'Mech to hit around 3% heat. Adding 4 more Jump Jets will take this same 'Mech to around 10% heat after a full burn.


SHS? i thought those were extinct lol

otherwise, like what i'm seeing! height-wise i think a single JJ should be next to useless though to encourage installing at least 2 JJ on any mech

Edited by JagdFlanker, 08 July 2014 - 12:09 PM.


#12 Pezzer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 612 posts
  • LocationBristol, Tennessee

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:06 PM

Roger that, instead of nerfing something that needs it you are nerfing jumpjets.

I would be cool with this if the numbers didn't say "jump jets will be less useful AND generate a lot of heat". In reality, it would have been better to see Jumpjets building heat, having less thrust in the first .3 seconds of the burn, but then providing more overall forward thrust with less emphasis on the vertical. This would have made JJs a great way to jump over small pieces of terrain and away from enemies while disposing of the pop-tart meta that much more. Also, the first .3 second bit is to fix spamming the spacebar to get over mountains.

TL;DR don't nerf JJs, make them less pop-tarty and designed to move the Mech up and away from danger.

Edited by Pezzer, 08 July 2014 - 12:08 PM.


#13 Ace Goodfighter

    Rookie

  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 8 posts
  • LocationI dont cry i'm British!

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:06 PM

Who needs jump jets when you have roads rivers mountains caves and leg busting ravines?

#14 dangerzone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 295 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in a F14-Tomcat

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:08 PM

View PostFupDup, on 08 July 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

Wait, why are all mechs getting reduced lift? Including the ones that use the maximum number of jets they can carry? My Thors and Novas, using all 5 of their hardwired jets, already felt like goodyear blimps that struggled to jump up even the most modestly sized hills.


I almost thought the same thing. I had to re-read. I think he means that we can still jump the same max height per jj amount, just that with less jj's the vertical thrust is less meaning it takes longer to get to max height, which either means it'll take more fuel to reach max height with less jj's or we're getting more jj fuel time (the meter/bar thing on the hud)

#15 shad0w4life

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,131 posts
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:10 PM

View Postwanderer, on 08 July 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Doesn't fix poptarting, doesn't simplify how jump jets work. Doesn't do anything but obfuscate the game further.

How is this much of a fix, really?


How about you wait until it's in before saying that's the case, it definitely punishes the dual PPC+Guass TW build with heat reduction speed. Lower DPS is good overall, and if they risk overheating more then you have a 43 armor leg to blow off easier.

#16 Jomacdo

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Survivor
  • 24 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:11 PM

Posted Image

So it looks like it takes another 6 jump jets to get twice the effect of one.

Is PGI really bad at implementing what they say they will or are they just really bad at graphs?

#17 Bilbo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 7,864 posts
  • LocationSaline, Michigan

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:12 PM

Sounds good. Can't wait to see what happens.

#18 Xeno Phalcon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 2,393 posts
  • LocationHeard Nekobich was gone

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:12 PM

Quote

Just to be clear, we are not trying to remove pop-tarting from MWO. It is a valid, tactical means of play. The way we want to address it is from a cost per performance view, not eliminate it.


Posted Image

Absolute first thing that popped into my head lol.

#19 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,846 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:12 PM

View PostJomacdo, on 08 July 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Posted Image

So it looks like it takes another 6 jump jets to get twice the effect of one.

Is PGI really bad at implementing what they say they will or are they just really bad at graphs?

Lol @ taking 8 jets to give twice the height of 1 jet.

#20 XX Sulla XX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,036 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:15 PM

Quote

One common misconception that I've seen concerning these changes is that this was supposed to "fix" the "pop-tart meta". That is not the case. Just to be clear, we are not trying to remove pop-tarting from MWO. It is a valid, tactical means of play. The way we want to address it is from a cost per performance view, not eliminate it. The changes in this update do affect the pop-tart meta builds but only by increasing costs in tonnage, space and having to adapt to less vertical thrust


We did not think you wanted to remove it but make it less OP so it did not dominate high ELO game play so much.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users