510 replies to this topic

[LiGhtningFF13]

Like this new fix. Well thought!

[wanderer]

Heffay, on 08 July 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

Not to ignore the rest of your points, but since they are irrelevant, I'll just deal with this part which is just plain wrong. Jump jet effectiveness will be tied to chassis weight and engine size, so it's not a simple matter of strapping on more jump jets. You have an engine that actually fuels that mobility. Just like TT.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...818d08ef25882b9

Utterly illegal design in TT- the 5V with this engine could only support 3 jets (100/30 = 3, rounded down) there. Perfectly legit in MWO, and gives the Spider exactly the same mobility it'd have regardless of engine size when jumping in MWO as well.

The current jump jet system is full of derp. Now, modifying performance based on chassis and engine weight? OK, we've just made the system even MORE complex for no good reason.

X number of jets should provide Y amount of performance regardless of chassis or engine as far as thrust is concerned. It takes 5 jets in TT to move a 'Mech 150m, whether it's an 80-ton Charger or a 30-ton Valkyrie- that is, a jump jet is "what it takes to move a 'Mech one 30-meter hex".

Edited by wanderer, 09 July 2014 - 06:39 AM.

[Agent of Change]

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

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.

I respect this and like that direction. I also get that y'all don't want to "fix pop-tarts" out of existence. BUT if you want the mechs to feel heavy, tank like and less agile something HAS to be done about TTK. Walking tanks is awesome but PPFLD takes your heavy walking tank and turns it into a stationary salvage pile way too quickly.

We don't want pop-tarting gone completely, we just want it brought into balance so it doesn't trump brawling. We'd like it to be an actual skill in game not a "follow blueprints in mechlab for skill" kind of thing.

Great JJ change, heat good, thrust adjusted awesome... but please do something about penalty free PPFLD that doesn't involve yet more wierd mechanics that hurt brawling more than PP players. Might I suggest dealing with one of the following: Instant universal Convergence, Heat that works more like TT instead of scaling infinitely like it does now, or maybe addressing penalty free alpha strikes..

[Heffay]

wanderer, on 09 July 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...818d08ef25882b9

Utterly illegal design in TT- the 5V with this engine could only support 3 jets (100/30 = 3, rounded down) there. Perfectly legit in MWO, and gives the Spider exactly the same mobility it'd have regardless of engine size when jumping in MWO as well.

The current jump jet system is full of derp. Now, modifying performance based on chassis and engine weight? OK, we've just made the system even MORE complex for no good reason.

X number of jets should provide Y amount of performance regardless of chassis or engine as far as thrust is concerned. It takes 5 jets in TT to move a 'Mech 150m, whether it's an 80-ton Charger or a 30-ton Valkyrie- that is, a jump jet is "what it takes to move a 'Mech one 30-meter hex".

We aren't slaves to TT, and for very good reason. TT has to be simplified, because you're using pen & paper and need all kinds of abstraction. FPS Sims can implement much more dynamic models, and since jump jets are powered by the engine, the engine size as well as the weight of the mech *should* have an impact on how effective the jets are.

It's not that TT is the "right" way to do it. It's a simplification for practical purposes. As long as the implementation that PGI comes up with is in the spirit of the TT rules, they are perfectly valid and *far* more preferable than keeping the simplified system.

[Tannhauser Gate]

I will reserve judgement until I play it. Paul is normally on target but this is a confusing explanation. Hes saying its a minor change to bring JJs more in line with intended cost/performance but then the graph seems to show drastic difference from previous performance. So Im going to take him on word and assume the graph is misleading.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 09 July 2014 - 07:23 AM.

[Cimarb]

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

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."

I am too, which is why I brought this up to Russ on Twitter last night: https://twitter.com/...682470457552896 (sorry, on my iPad so I cannot copy it directly here...)

(Edit: Removed double post...)

Edited by Cimarb, 09 July 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[wanderer]

Heffay, on 09 July 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

We aren't slaves to TT, and for very good reason. TT has to be simplified, because you're using pen & paper and need all kinds of abstraction. FPS Sims can implement much more dynamic models, and since jump jets are powered by the engine, the engine size as well as the weight of the mech *should* have an impact on how effective the jets are.

It's not that TT is the "right" way to do it. It's a simplification for practical purposes. As long as the implementation that PGI comes up with is in the spirit of the TT rules, they are perfectly valid and *far* more preferable than keeping the simplified system.

This isn't simplification for practical purposes. It's adding complexity for no practical purpose. That is, the MWO system for JJ's is -more complex- than the one for TT, much like TT can actually handle an engine below 100 rating while it breaks MWO- because they kludged around the actual system to produce a more awkward result in MWO's mechlabs instead.

Even before this, MWO had an awkward jump system that had little to do with TT. This makes it even more convoluted and clumsy.

[Gyrok]

My question is: Since the Highlander seems to have already had this balance pass previously, will this greatly affect the jump performance of the HGN chassis above and beyond heat changes?

[and zero]

Jomacdo, on 08 July 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

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?

Both. Sadly. Don't you know we have had community warfare implemented for like a year now?

Edited by and zero, 09 July 2014 - 09:11 AM.

[Screech]

Sounds like we will go back to CB days when everyone with JJ's only uses one.

I think we need to start judging PGI like a baseball player. If they get 1 hit out of 3 they are considered great, this would work well with PGI as well.

[MrBlonde42]

Programming something "simple" isn't always simple, or effective. I dislike the added complexity of the fall damage, but I understand it's necessity. I'll wait for the JJ heat generation and effectiveness to be implemented before deciding if they are worth the extra complexity. Besides... who ever said piloting a battlemech was simple?

Edited by MrBlonde42, 09 July 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[Void Angel]

stjobe, on 09 July 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

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):
[interesting flavor text redacted for brevity of quote; was a good read, though]

I have two difficulties with the conclusions you're drawing here, I'm afraid. First, the sections cited, while interesting, don't give a description of what exactly the Battlemech's overall mobility is - "nimble" is a relative term - and are more concerned with the interplay between the Mechwarrior and the 'Mech's onboard computer.

More importantly, though, this reference illustrates why the tabletop rules - especially the flavor tex and fictional supplements - cannot be used as a reference - they often contradict each other. Here, you're telling me that a Battlemech is a learning computer that can be trained much like a Mechwarrior - but there is no support in the actual game rules for this flavor concept. No stat exists in any rulebook I know of for the quality of a 'Mech's DI computer; only the MechWarrior's skill is variable - even with Clan technology which is literally centuries in advance of the Inner Sphere (sorta.)

However, I think I need to clarify my point; see next response:

Yokomohoyo, on 09 July 2014 - 01:46 AM, said:

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. 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.

Battlemechs fulfill the battlefield role of super-tanks. They're designed, in tabletop, to feel like tanks - they can only torso twist one facing per ten seconds, for example. Just turning 180 degrees takes anywhere from 25% (Locust) to more than 50% (slowest Assaults. And Urbanmechs) of a 'Mech's allotted movement (per 10 second game turn.) This is a far cry from the highly mobile powered-armor feel of a Heavy Gear - because Heavy Gears take the role of super-infantry. So while BattleMechs can, should, and do exceed the mobility of even our modern armor (the Abrams' max landspeed over rough terrain without killing crewmembers or shattering its drive train is 48km/h,) they still need to retain the feel of being a huge armored war machine. The changes referenced in Win Ott's post, to which I was responding, deal with how current jump jet capabilities are breaking that feel, which is part of the reason PGI is making them.

To play Battletech is also to engage in retro-futurism. Remember, the Abrams didn't even begin line production until two years after BattleTech was published, and some of the capabilities it has today are the result of more modern upgrades. Much like the tragic lack delay of the personal jetpacks promised by 1960s futurists, BattleMech capabilities both exceed and fall short of expectations based on modern technology. Don't let the specifics get to you too much - it's simply part of the genre.

Edited by Void Angel, 09 July 2014 - 09:40 AM.

[BOWMANGR]

Wow, these are actually really good news. Good job PGI.

P.S. LOL at the haters who just rage at anything for no reason.

[Elyam]

Jump jets should have the range and height attributed to them historically in the BTU. Each jet gets you 30m of travel. No mech carrying less than 3 (with the single exception I'm aware of being the 100-ton Annihilator advancing ponderously along at 2/3/2). And yes, this does mean Spiders with an 800' leap.

[Bloodweaver]

Marmon Rzohr, on 09 July 2014 - 02:42 AM, said:

Did you not read the post ?
Quite apart form the fact that it will bring the cost of poptarting up, it's designed to make the game more realistic and involving for pilots. You know... a bit more like a sim...

For example, the Summoner actually just got a buff because it's large number of JJs is now much more relevant then it was before.

The OP's content does not state this. You would think this is the case, because it makes sense, and because the OP, at one point, states:

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

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.

However, this is immediately contradicted in the next statement:

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

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.

Less compounded lift means less benefit from additional jump jets - if the first gives you 10 meters lift, the second will give you 8, the third 5, the fourth 3, the fifth 1. So, in this example, you could get two jump jets for 18 meters or five jump jets for 27 meters. In other words, you will use more than twice as much weight to go only half again as high. This system is actually already in place, but what PGI is saying is it's going to get even worse.

They didn't just nerf builds with one or two jump jets. They nerfed all builds with jump jets, including your Summoner. While it's good that they removed the "initial boost" advantage that comes with one jump jet (if you want more details about this feature and why it's a problem, search through Koniving's post history) it is very, very bad that they did so by making ALL jump jet amounts less effective. Yes, you will need three or four to get any real use out of them. But carrying twice, or even three times as many jets will become even more pointless than it is now, because they will provide LESS compounded lift, not more.

What they SHOULD have done is:
1) remove the initial boost that Koniving has been on a spiel about recently
2) give MORE boost per added jump jet, instead of less, as their having less is the whole reason people rarely bother taking more than two. A Quickdraw with seven(!) jump jets should be able to fly across ravines with ease. A SDR-5V with TWELVE should be able to blast off like a rocket. You could frankly give a linear amount of additional boost per jump jet (10m for one, 20m for two, 50m for five, etc) and it would probably work just fine.

Now, could all of the above be wrong? Sure. But the evidence is there, and the post does say what it says.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 09 July 2014 - 09:54 AM.

[HUBA]

Shooting in midair is a valid tactic but jump sniping is just ridiculous. It's like Clint Eastwood shoots from the hip right between you eyes. Looks great but would happened only once in 1000 tries. Or a real sniper on a trampoline... Just let the cockpit shake last over the whole air time therefor less intensive. It would make sniping more challenging or less effective but let brawler the option to fire there weapons while jumping with a high chance to hit. But it should always be easier to hit from the ground.

[Bors Mistral]

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

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

What your goal for this first wave of JJ changes should have been, can be put very simly:

Have 1 JJ do less.
Have 2 JJ do about the same as now.
Have 3+ JJ do more.

I the first JJ does X, adding a second one should give you a total of X*1.5 to X*1.8 depending on the weight class.

Then, have this also proportionally applied to the speed of vertical acceleration and, to a degree, to airborne turnign speed.

After you get that right, your next step should be to add more maneuvering functionality to JJ, such as backward jumping, forward and side jumps.

Yes, mech should feel heavy... when they are in the heavy or assault category. Ligh mechs should be generally nimble, and a spider packed with 12JJ should be capable of quite the flight. Mediums need a boost too, but that's more to come from scaling certain of them to look more in line with the weight class instead of standing tall head to ehad with assaults.

Edited by Bors Mistral, 09 July 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Nebelfeuer]

HUBA, on 09 July 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

Shooting in midair is a valid tactic but jump sniping is just ridiculous. It's like Clint Eastwood shoots from the hip right between you eyes. Looks great but would happened only once in 1000 tries. Or a real sniper on a trampoline... Just let the cockpit shake last over the whole air time therefor less intensive. It would make sniping more challenging or less effective but let brawler the option to fire there weapons while jumping with a high chance to hit. But it should always be easier to hit from the ground.

that would require that they change the current reticule shake mechanic. Currently there is no connection between the reticule during the shake and the aiming point of your guns. I like your idea though.

[WarHippy]

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.

In any case, taking damage running around is a tuning issue, jump jet capable 'mechs can take the stresses of landing if they use their jets properly instead of just hammering down until the reaction mass is gone, and the flamer's heat balance is, well, a balance issue.

Well that depends on where you look. There are instances of mechs in the books doing all kinds of impressive maneuvers including using jump jets and then landing into a roll and springing back onto their feat avoiding fire. The mechs were often described being more nimble than you are making them out to be. That being said Heavy Gear is awesome as well.

[Cimarb]

Bors Mistral, on 09 July 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

I the first JJ does X, adding a second one should give you a total of X*1.5 to X*1.8 depending on the weight class.

I do not agree, as the first jump jet needs to overcome the mass of the mech before any movement is made. Once that mass is overcome, anything above that should give a linear increase. So, the first jump jet can give a (very) small jump, while the second jet gives a full jet increase. See the following post for a VERY good explanation of this: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3544879