510 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

Graph is wrong. Y-intercept should be NEGATIVE, as with 0 jump jets.

First jump jet should provide almost no height.

E.G.: 35 ton Jenner straps on 1 JJ which produces 40 tons of thrust. Jenner gets a net of 5 tons of thrust propelling it. Barely any acceleration at all.

Now, 35 ton Jenner straps on 2 JJs, for a total of 80 tons of thrust. Net thrust is 45 tons. For strapping on a 2nd JJ, the Jenner now has NINE TIMES as much thrust as before when it had only 1 JJ.

Instead, your graph shows that strapping on a 2nd JJ provides only marginal additional lift.

[Cimarb]

Heffay, on 08 July 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

Well, assume that the engine can only put out a certain amount of JJ thrust.

Dividing the amount of thrust by the number of jump jets doesn't mean that the amount of thrust is magically multiplied by the number of jump jets.

However, through careful engineering with more jump jets you can have incremental improvements on the effective thrust generated by your engine, by tailoring the jet for particular circumstances. So having 2 jump jets can increase your effective thrust by 20% over one jump jet just doing all the thrust.

See? There is a logical explanation for everything.

First, this is BT, and logic is only a valid excuse when it is something we can currently do. Logic does not apply when taking about fusion reactors powering mechanical robots and jumpships moving from star to star in seconds.

That being said, we do actually have something that is quite similar to jump jets. It happens to be called: rocket science...

YueFei, on 08 July 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

Graph is wrong. Y-intercept should be NEGATIVE, as with 0 jump jets.

First jump jet should provide almost no height.

E.G.: 35 ton Jenner straps on 1 JJ which produces 40 tons of thrust. Jenner gets a net of 5 tons of thrust propelling it. Barely any acceleration at all.

Now, 35 ton Jenner straps on 2 JJs, for a total of 80 tons of thrust. Net thrust is 45 tons. For strapping on a 2nd JJ, the Jenner now has NINE TIMES as much thrust as before when it had only 1 JJ.

Instead, your graph shows that strapping on a 2nd JJ provides only marginal additional lift.

There you have it, rocket science for dummies.

While my exponential example was a little overboard, what YueFei said is exactly correct. The first rocket is using most of its power to overcome the downward gravity of the mech. It should have little to no thrust after that. Every jump jet you put on after the first, though, is total icing on the cake.

[HUBA]

The spider always have the same thrusters on the back regardless if it only fit 1 or if it fit 12 JJ. Lets think of a fuel tank. More JJ gives you more air time but not more thrust. So with 2JJ you have twice the boost time but no more takeoff speed. Also more "JJ" would not make more heat, only the fact that you have twice the time to spend make it hotter.

[Thunder Child]

Whelp. My Spider 5-V is now useless. At least before, with 12 jjs, it could pretend to be a UAV. (Sometimes I could even reach low orbit.)

[Ultimax]

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.

You have worked very hard to translate so many things from TT, and yet you seem persistent to maintain that jumping & firing multiple heavy ballistics and PPCs all converging on a single point with no accuracy loss is "valid".


You have an entire sub-class of (pulse) lasers that actually do allow for higher accuracy while jumping, in TT and yet in this game they serve no purpose other than to trab noobs or people who like their sound effects.


I think your statement on this makes it clear why the constant nerfs and adjustments we get tend to adversely affect pretty much everyone harder than jump snipers.

Jump sniping is beyond "valid" - it is the single supreme tactic that dominates every other.


That is a clear sign of game balance gone completely awry.

[Bloodweaver]

Sandpit, on 08 July 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

light mechs using them for mobility will not be affected nearly as much since they aren't going tor height, they're going for mobility. It is going to help mitigate poptarting without hurting the lighter classes nearly as much. They've already talked about making adjustments for the lighter mechs to ensure they don't get hit as hard by this nerf.

Actually, if jump jets are indeed now going to provide less "compounded lift" than they already do, as noted in the OP, it is going to reinforce pop-tarting, not mitigate it. Less compounded lift means less lift per additional jump jet.

We already have this in the game. The whole reason jump jets were being addressed in the first place is because you get a lot more benefit mounting one or two instead of none, compared to the benefit you get from mounting six or seven instead of just two. Why use up 6 tons to go 30% higher than you would with just 2 tons? If 2 tons of jump jets can shoot you 20 meters into the air, and 6 tons of jump jets on the same mech will only shoot you 26 meters in the air, at an identical speed... What good reason do you have for choosing 6? It's a waste of four tons.
(note: these values are purely illustrative, but probably not too far off from the game's actual values)

This has always been the problem with jump jets. You get a great advantage by installing one or two, after that, benefits are nearly cosmetic in their insigificance. Well, that's always been one problem. The other problem, as Koniving has recently been on a warpath over on these forums, is the initial "hop" you get from just tapping the jets, which itself gives you much better thrust than the jets themselves do if you continue to fire them. Both of these traits reinforce pop-tarting.*

Based on what this post says, it's quite possible that this diminishing-returns effect of additional jump-jets is going to become even more pronounced. That is to say, additional jump-jets will give even less additional benefit than they do now. Which is ridiculous. We'll have to wait and see for sure, but PGI hasn't shown themselves to be averse to ridiculous solutions in the past :/

The only way to implement this more-pronounced-diminishing-returns effect without reinforcing pop-tarting, would be to make jump jets less potent across the board. So that even though one or two will do essentially nothing in a mech, even six or seven only get you up so far, and quite slowly at that. This seems to be the direction PGI has taken, based on the OP, which is... unfortunate. I'm trying not to swear But while the idea that you'll need four or so jump-jets to pop-tart is in and of itself fine and reasonable, it's the path they seem to have taken to reach that point, which is unreasonable. That path being, make high jump-jet counts weaker as well. The end result of this path is that jump-jets will become purely tools for pop-tarting, and nothing else. Like I said, we'll have to wait and see for sure. But my hopes are... not the highest they've ever been...

A good, and frankly, painfully obvious solution would have been the simple one. Make jump jets provide a linear benefit in both height and velocity. Make the baseline height and velocity stats dependent on 'mech weight. In short, stop being so afraid of making the game FUN. Would this turn the Spider-5V (for example, with its twelve potential jets) into a mini-Gundam? Sure. But why not? It literally has nothing else going for it. If linear benefits somehow prove to be too strong, tweak down gradually from there. But don't tweak UP from the idea of jump-jets being slightly better than walking across a trampoline.

* Not that pop-tarting should be forbidden, of course. It's just a tactic. The real killer is pinpoint front-loaded damage from ballistics, but it's clear by now that PGI will never, ever budge on that.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 08 July 2014 - 10:27 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Paul Inouye said:

The graph is only to represent the fact that both Heat and Thrust get a base initial value with a linear climb with each additional jump jet.

I underlined the problem of the current jump jet system. If you mount 1 jump jet, you get a "base initial value" of thrust. If you mount a second one, you double the tonnage (cost) but you do not get a double return (thrust).

That means that overall, the jump jet usability function is very non-linear.

There is one more thing - jump jet in game parameters:

JUMP JETS - CLASS I Tons: 2.0 vertical thrust: 62.00 90t - 200t
JUMP JETS - CLASS II Tons: 1.0 vertical thrust: 60.71 80t - 85t
JUMP JETS - CLASS III Tons: 1.0 vertical thrust: 56.30 60t - 75t
JUMP JETS - CLASS IV Tons: 0.5 vertical thrust: 39.30 40t - 55t
JUMP JETS - CLASS V Tons: 0.5 vertical thrust: 25.00 20t - 35t

Class I is 2 times heavier than Class II, but generates only 3% more thrust. That's why Highlanders jump worse than Victors.

PS. In fact Highlander gets 62/90 =0,69 thrust per tonne of weight while Timber Wolf gets 56.30/75 = 0.75 thrust per tonne of weight. And the Highlander has to devote 2 times more tonnage for jump jets. So the Timber Wolf jumps higher and uses half the weight.

That's why jumping timber wolves is the new way to play while I don't see any Highlanders being used by 12-mans.

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 July 2014 - 11:31 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Cimarb, on 08 July 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Jump Jets SHOULD give compounded lift. You should get MORE use out of MORE jets, and in fact I think it should be exponential more than linear.

On top of that, if you look at the chart, the first jet gives X amount of thrust. To get 2X (twice the trust of the first jet), you have to equip EIGHT, yes, "8", jump jets. Very few mechs can even mount that many jump jets, so every mech in game will benefit more from 1 jet than they will from any additional jets after that.

As you said in your Addendum 2, though, we could be completely misunderstanding that graph. We really need some specific examples...

What I see in that graph is ...

Y = A + X * B

Where Y = altitude (or Heat), X = number of jumpjets, A = the base value of thrust (or heat) and B = the increment that the thrust (or heat) increases per jet.

I agree that A should be less significant than B (the difference between one jet and two or three jets should be very noticable).

However ... other than a crappy visual representation, we really have no idea what Y, A or B are, and even less of an idea how this will actually work in practice.

PGI has gotten quite a few things right over the past few months. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for another week and "wait and see."

[XX Sulla XX]

Looking the the books jump jet mechs seem to be fast and agile.

[XX Sulla XX]

Shredhead, on 08 July 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

You want to incentivize people to take more jump jets. Why does your graph not look like this?

Nobody in his right mind will ever use more than five JJs, it's just not worth it. Your approach will still benefit use of 2-3 jumpjets. If you use the same graph I propose for both lift and height, it should be enough.

Exactly!!! And thanks for saving me from making that image

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

its about time, I cant tell you how much 1 jump jet in the side torso rattles my ocd about symmetry. Also, is the lrm patch for min range in this upcoming update? or is it not finished yet?

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 09 July 2014 - 12:09 AM, said:

PGI has gotten quite a few things right over the past few months. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for another week and "wait and see."

as a founder they've been surprising me as well, I wonder how different the gameplay will be in a year.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 09 July 2014 - 12:26 AM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

The amount of lift you get is based on Chassis Weight and engine size]

http://mwomercs.com/...65#entry3542465

Wish they had an examples of exactly how much engine size effects lift.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 09 July 2014 - 12:23 AM.

[Asmosis]

So assuming a mech has the max number of JJ's allowed, how big a reduction are we going to see in vertical jump distance? 30%? 50%? 10%?

I understand it'll vary based on chassis due to being able to equip differing amounts of JJ's but a ballpark figure would be nice

[CyclonerM]

The so-called "Top players" can be poptarts as much as they want, as long as i do not have them in my matches

However, if you think about it, the poptart tactic is just flawed for everyone. Those who bring "balanced" builds are often prompted to bring meta themselves, and the poptarts think they are showing their skill.. Pressing spacebar and clicking their mouse??!

I still think that even using successfully a missile boat against a veteran team is harder than jumpsniping, as you have many more counters. MEH.

[Karl Streiger]

First - you shouldn't throw away the 3 heat per jj use - its a great balancing idea
Your constant is FUEL - so Pauls JJ system is a kind of Isochor system - the volume of fuel is constant - or call it isofuel system. -changing values are thrust and heat
With the problem that 2 JJs for the price of twice the weight and twice the crits won't give you twice the thrust. - Reason may be simple:

You don't have to increase the thrust rating because if 5 JJs should produce 500% of thrust - it means you will catapult your Mech to the moon with 5 JJs - while 1 JJ will hardly be able to lift you from the ground


The better way to give reason for more JJs is to "increase" the fuel

So lets call it Kalle's system - a isotherme - ore isoheat system where the HPS for JJs is constant
- changing values are thrust and fuel

BUT this time you get twice the thrust/fuel value for 2 JJs

For example each JJ gives you 1sec more fuel - that on the other hand means - 12 JJs will produce much more heat as 1 JJ - simple because people will fly longer.
TLDR:
As an example for Class 1 (2t) JJs

• 1 will produce thrust of 40 - and fuel for 1.5 second - and generate 3 HPS (4.5 heat)
  
• 2 will produce thrust of 50 - fuel for 2.4 second - and generate 3 HPS (full burn = 7.2 heat)
  
• 3 will produce thrust of 60 - fuel for 3 seconds - and generate 3 HPS (full burn = 9 heat)
  
• 4 will produce thrust of 65 - fuel for 3.7 seconds and 3 HPS (for a total of 11,1)
  
• 5 will produce thrust of 70 - fuel for 4.2 seconds and 3 HPS (for a total of 12.6)

You see - 2 JJs will produce 2 times the thrust/time value of 1 JJ while 5 JJs produce 5 times the thurst/time value of 1 JJs.


And heat is a constant -1 JJ doesn't have much fuel so you don't generate much heat

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 July 2014 - 01:32 AM.

[Its Steve]

gunghoblazes, on 08 July 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

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

^ this!

[Kitane]

edit: Didn't pay enough attention to vertical axis labels. The new system doesn't solve the main problem with JJs.

Paul:

1 JJ = x meters
2 JJs = x * 2 meters
3 JJs = x * 3 meters
etc

Is it too much to ask?

Edited by Kitane, 09 July 2014 - 01:51 AM.

[Yokomohoyo]

Pezzer, on 08 July 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

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

Nerfing is never the solution it only creates more problems like nerfing jumpjets is going to exterminate the few remaining brawlers.

Vassago Rain, on 08 July 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

So as we've established, Paul doesn't have a problem with poptarts. Thus, he has decided that everybody now gets weaker jets that generate heat.

So they can exterminate the few remaining brawlers.

Appogee, on 08 July 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

8 Jets to double the height of 1...? Does common sense ever get considered in these decisions?

What game are you playing? It most certainly isn’t MWO because common sense rarely gets considered like the patch 1.3.283 in which they made the AC/2 do less damage, generate a lot more heat and have less range than the AC/5. Most of the changes to MWO come from the feedback of crybabies.

wanderer, on 08 July 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Go back to the TT limits on maximum jets as a function of engine capacity as well. It's a KISS application, and MWO desperately needs more KISS and less complexity for no other reason than making the game seem more complex.

These are words of wisdom that fall on deaf ears. The secret to the success of many video/computer games like Team Fortress, League of Legends, Defense of the Ancients, etc. has been the use of the KISS principle. The KISS principle is why Tetris is by far the best-selling video/computer game ever, outselling its nearest competitor by almost 10 times. Chess has been around for more than a millennium yet it is still the best selling tabletop game ever because of the KISS principle.

Void Angel, on 08 July 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

A point of order: The Tabletop rulebook is not and cannot be an authoritative reference for what should be done in this game.

I agree that tabletop rulebook is not and cannot be an authoritative reference for this game or any game. The authoritative reference for all games should be common sense, logic and reason.

Goose, on 08 July 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

There is an underlining issue with jump jet use: The BattleAxe in TRO:'75 strongly implies untrained jump jet use will get you killed directly; MW:O only sort'a talks about how "skilled" we are with its' "skill trees" …

This statement is false and as it is written, it implies that jump jet use in BattleTech is extremely hard to use and dangerous but it is the experimental jump jets on the upper legs of the BattleAxe that are extremely hard to use and dangerous. The direct quote from the book is this: “Still unsure of the BattleMech’s ability to swiftly move through built-up terrain, the designers later mounted experimental jump jets on the upper legs, allowing the machine to vault anything it could not go through. Extra training for MechWarriors and new actuator software had to be included as several pilots died early on, unable to handle the heavy, bulky design and crude jump jets to land safely on both feet.”

Sandpit, on 08 July 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

light mechs using them for mobility will not be affected nearly as much since they aren't going tor height, they're going for mobility. It is going to help mitigate poptarting without hurting the lighter classes nearly as much. They've already talked about making adjustments for the lighter mechs to ensure they don't get hit as hard by this nerf.

The main reason to use jump jets in mechs 60 tons or less is to jump as high as you can overcome the abusive sensors nerf and see the enemies that your useless sensor won’t detect so you won’t get instantly killed by charging the only mech that appears in your sensor or in your line of sight but has 11 mechs hidden besides him.

Win Ott, on 08 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

"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"

I kinda thought the whole point of many mechs was that they were more agile than big, tank-like, shambling things. What's the point of a Spider, Jenner, or even the poor Locust, if they can't be light and agile?

You are right in that mechs are supposed to replace the tank by being the ultimate military vehicle in land with more maneuverability, mobility, agility, speed and unhindered by terrain like tanks. However in MWO that isn’t the case because an M1 Abrams can climb a 60 degree incline without any problems but in MWO mechs have a hard time climbing anything above 30 degrees. If MWO wants to make mechs more tank-like then give them the mobility and sensors of tanks to compensate, or why not just make them tanks which would be more useful since the M1 Abrams can hit a target the size of a pie plate at 1.5 miles or 2.41km. Unfortunately those sensors are too high-tech for our mechs. You can see all the amazing sensors, mobility, accuracy, etc, of the M1 Abrams in this video:

Win Ott, on 08 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

And what engineer would design a battlemech with lots of jump-jets but fail to build legs that could handle the stresses of landing (or even just running around)? Must be the same guy who makes flamers heat the shooter up more than the target.

Engineers are limited by reason and logic, so please do not offend the Ork Mekboyz building our BattleMechs by calling them engineers.

Void Angel, on 08 July 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

I believe you are confusing Battletech with Heavy Gear. Battletech has always been about large armored war machines that are piloted like a vehicle rather than run like a mecha. They're more mobile than wheeled and/or tracked vehicles, but they're not supposed to feel like exoskeletal powered armor when you run them around the map - which is what the quote is saying. Mind you, Heavy Gear is awesome - it's just not this game.

This vehicle or mech is supposed to be the ultimate military vehicle in land replacing the tank due to their better maneuverability, mobility, agility, speed and unhindered by terrain like tanks. I agree that Heavy Gear is awesome.

Edited by Yokomohoyo, 09 July 2014 - 02:22 AM.

[Yokomohoyo]

Mawai, on 08 July 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

For light mechs, jump jets can be a key element of their survivability .. they are supposed to be fast and agile and take to the air. You claim to want a more "tank like" feel ... but how many tanks run at 150km/h over uneven terrain? The technology in the game is not tanks ... it is battlemechs and some of them can jump significant distances.

You are correct in that the technology in the game is not tanks because they are supposed to be the ultimate military vehicle in land replacing the tank due to their better maneuverability, mobility, agility, speed and unhindered by terrain like tanks. I sound like a broken record repeating myself but it is the basis of the game and the most important point that needs to be address to make this game a believable simulation of combat in the future because of what use is piloting a mech that is inferior to a M1 Abrams like the mechs in MWO.

General Taskeen, on 08 July 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Thus in MWO JJ's don't actually behave really at all how they should as far as maneuverability goes. The only programming currently "in" MWO JJ's is "Float," and thus "poptarting" is their main use.

If you want to "fix" Jump Jets PGI, then they need to have better functionality added that allows for other tactical uses they are supposed to be capable of.

This is an excellent idea because jump jets with more maneuverability will make reaching the poptarters easier which is what the mechs were designed for. In MWO mechs are used as a weapons platform that goes up and down. Insert broken record here.

Cimarb, on 08 July 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

I just do not get it. You should benefit from taking more than one jump jet, but that graph shows that it takes EIGHT jump jets to double the thrust of the first jet....

I know lots of people have already said it, but I just do not understand the logic behind that...

What game are you playing? It most certainly isn’t MWO because common sense, logic and reason are not the basis for most of the changes to MWO which come from the feedback of crybabies.

xWiredx, on 08 July 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

Some consideration might want to be given to the maps with this change, as getting around some maps without JJs in their current form can be extremely off-putting. For instance, this could increase the amount of time it takes some mechs to join in battle in a negative way.

This is an excellent idea because speed is essential for reaching the poptarters before they can destroy your mech. Insert broken record here. Maybe they could add GPS guidance to the mechs so they can travel the fastest route just like what we have today in our cellphones but those sensors are too high-tech for our mechs.

Azargo, on 08 July 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

Dear PGI, poptarting isn't the problem, pinpoint damage is. I wonder if you're eventually going to crack down on that "multiple weapons hitting the same location instantaneously, although that wasn't the case in TT" thingy. Now that would be wonderful. And then all the poptarts are welcome to stay, once they can't hit you with 3-4 very hard-hitting weapons to the same exact pixel on your mech.

Finally the voice of reason! Pinpoint damage is the problem but eliminating it is not the solution since the M1 Abrams can hit a target the size of a pie plate at 1.5 miles or 2.41km, the mechs in MWO should be able to hit with that same accuracy or better. In my opinion the solution to 99.99% of the problems in MWO is to add 10 times more armor and 15 times more ammo since there is a 0.5 ammo nerf and eliminate all the nerfs because the mech’s armor was designed for a fast tabletop game between to persons.

Void Angel, on 08 July 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

In reality, poptarts have dominated the competitive landscape since the Highlander was introduced. They are not a way to play, but counterable with a certain degree of skill. They are the way to play if you want to win as often as possible - hence, the team compositions of all the top winners of our last tournament. Not only were they all using the same jump sniper tactics, their team comps were nearly identical. They did this because that comp and those tactics gave them the best chance to win - I know they can run other tactics, and rock peoples' world with them. But when the going got tough, the tough drove poptarts. Again, jump sniping isn't an IWIN button; you can learn to play around it to an extent. But the fact that you can still play in other ways does not invalidate the fact that jump sniping yields an assymmetrically large advantage compared to other kinds of gameplay at the moment. That is a problem from a game design standpoint, and it's one that does need "fixed."

I agree that is a game design problem that needs to be fixed but not by nerfing. It was the nerfing of sensors and movement that made the poptarters so powerful because without those nerfs the brawlers would be able to know where the poptarters are located and rush them from the safest route to take them out with the massive damage of SRM 6, AC/20, ML, etc. that often lacks pinpoint damage.

Edited by Yokomohoyo, 09 July 2014 - 02:04 AM.

[stjobe]

Void Angel, on 08 July 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

I believe you are confusing Battletech with Heavy Gear. Battletech has always been about large armored war machines that are piloted like a vehicle rather than run like a mecha. They're more mobile than wheeled and/or tracked vehicles, but they're not supposed to feel like exoskeletal powered armor when you run them around the map - which is what the quote is saying.

I beg to differ.

BattleMechs are very, very smart robots; they're not very tank-like at all. In fact, they're semi-autonomous; training a MechWarrior takes a long time, and that time is spent almost as much on training the BattleMech as it is the MechWarrior.

Here's a couple of snippets from pages 30-43 of Tech Manual (required reading for anyone wanting to discuss what a BattleMech is or is not):


(Tech Manual, p.42)


(Tech Manual, p. 43)