510 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Cimarb, on 09 July 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

I think that is a little unfair. Disagreeing does not make you a troll. A troll instigates an argument just to argue, not because they believe differently. On top of that, they will make personal attacks often, which I do not think Heffay ever has (that I have seen, at least).

You really don't want to know.

Edited by Deathlike, 10 July 2014 - 12:22 AM.

[TOGSolid]

Oh dear, people are discussing realism in regards to Battletech/Mechwarrior.

ABANDON THREAD, ABANDON THREAD, SHE'S GOING TO BLOW!

[ReXspec]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

Realistic physics and ballistics are NOT variable, they are scientifically predictable to a measurable degree, and at the engagement ranges were talking about, the factors that are beyond a pilot's or 'mech's ability to observe, measure or control are insignificant when you consider the projectile velocity, so I'm not sure how the two assertions are connected.

Yes, realism is good, but realism means predictable, not random. Randomness does not challenge skill, it levels the playing field between those with skill and those without.

Riiiight. Try telling an Infantryman or a commander to run physics equations in the heat of battle I'm sure that will work out really nice when he's under fire. In the case of MWO, players can do it because there are little to no factors that effect pin-point damage which any weapons except for ballistics, which are only effect by speed, arch and NOTHING ELSE. This is wrong.

Realism in a game like this about incorporating some sort of plausible randomness or uncertainty to a combat situation, but giving the pilot the tools to plan around these uncertainties or random variables and adapt to them--not eliminate these uncertainties or variables altogether.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

After you stop firing your jump jets, what physical forces would influence a 'mech's stability that would overwhelm it's gyro? Using your logic, it would make less sense for a 'mech to be able to fire while running than while falling through a consistent medium at a measurable speed.

Try aiming a rifle accurately while hurdling through the air as opposed to aiming the rifle while going at a steady groucho walk, with your feet planted firmly on the ground. Then you try to tell me that you can hit a point-target at over 400 - 600m away without being WAYYY off. Personally, if you can even hit the ground within thirty meters around your target, after firing in mid-air, I'd be impressed.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

Jump Jets do produce heat ... at the moment, it's pretty insignifcant, compared to firing an energy weapon, but it is there.

You're grasping at straws from a technicality. Jump-jets may produce a negligible amount of heat, but they do not produce noticeable heat. In the case of TT, jj's produce 3 heat, which would cause the heat percentage bar to rise. At present it doesn't do this, and, in the future, it won't do this, which is incorrect.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

You had to go there, didn't you? I don't recall challenging your service or experience ... I'm guessing you're a US military veteran from your location. PM me if you want me to send you a copy of my latest LES. Thank you for your service, but be careful before questioning anyone else's.

I was 11B (Infantry) in the 173D ABCT, 1-503D. I was deployed to combat zones in Afghanistan. I'd like to think I'm at least somewhat familiar with the bloody chaos of a battlefield. If you're going to appeal to some sort of reason, don't try tell ME that the battlefield is "predictable." Because any veteran here who has been on the ground will tell you you're full of sh*t. I I'd like to think I was being polite. Far more polite then many other veterans on this forum, anyway.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

science ... predictable.

Judging by Schrodinger's "uncertainty principle" no, it's not. Much of science is not as linear or static as you think it is.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

measurable, easily overcome, and arguably negligable when considering a 1000 mps projectile within 1000m range trying to hit a target several meters wide.

"Easily overcome?" Do you have any idea what kind of calculations and practice are put into basic marksmanship courses within the U.S. army? Let alone the numbers of factors snipers take into account when they're training or when they're on the field? I don't know about you, but it took a certain amount of practice in my military career to know where to shoot my rifle, how the air/atmosphere/weather would effect it, and where it would land. In mechwarrior, no familiarity or practice with 'mech gunnery or ballistics is required: All you do is point and shoot and the weapon will shoot precisely where you aim it (with the exception of ballistics, which are only effected by arch, but do not require much compensation).

To me, if any of those concepts of ballistics or marksmanship were applied to mechwarrior, it would absolutely PUSH the limit of a would-be mechwarrior's skill.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

observable, measurable, and static (except in the case of fauna ... however, while I'm concerned about hitting a deer in a car at 50 kph, a 'mech? not so much.)

A bullet, fauna and flora are not static. Again, you're discounting uncertainty principle. Principles of a moving target (such as a deer) have as many random factors (if not more) as a moving target such as a 'mech. Especially if I'm (supposed) to be firing a non-static round that is supposedly to be influenced by non-static forces such as recoil, movement, heat and the other forces I already mentioned.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

Your assertion is not, as you claim, a "fact". A gyro-stabilized weapon system is accurate in much more dynamic environments than falling through the air with no forces except gravity acting upon the platform.

Only when the two feet of a 'mech are planted firmly on the ground. The gyro is not soley responsible for weapon stabilization. The targeting computer, anchoring systems in the arms and legs (I.E. the actuators) are all responsible for giving the pilot the most accurate shot as possible. But if you're firing high-caliber weapon systems, that still make a 'mech recoil on the ground, the shot is NOT going to accurate in the air, either. Not to mention, the targeting computer is going to have a difficult time orientating a sighting of a shot if the arms are being influenced by strong wind, and a sudden change in gravity (I.E. hurdling through the air). An advanced targeting computer could better orientate a sighting in mid-air, but it would not be able to eliminate the crosshair "shake" altogether.

Edited by ReXspec, 10 July 2014 - 01:05 AM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

ReXspec, first, (and again) thank you for your service. You're right, you probably do have more experience regarding the chaos of the battlefield than I have, but that is not in question.

Your analogy comparing a 'mech to an infantryman is flawed. The chaos of the battlefield should NOT affect how a weapon system (in this case, a 'mech) operates. A rifle operates precisely the same way whether fired from a stand by an expert sniper on the range or fired by a nervous, frustrated, distracted soldier in the middle of a fire fight. The bullet departs the muzzle in measurable, observable, and generally predictable path. Some of the "random factors" that you say should affect aim do ... at the hand-mouse interface, not in the game itself. It is not the same, and these factors are much more amplified on a true battlefield, but adrenaline, excitement, confusion, frustration, and sensory overload are all factors that can and do affect video game players. Just like soldiers, the ones that can do well in a stressful situation are the ones who can maintain a steady balance between staying aware of the environment around them while controlling the things that they can actually control and using those things to defeat the enemy.

I feel bad comparing the stress of combat to the stress of a video game, but the principle is the same ... it is how the person reacts to the stressors that determines how well he performs. The main difference is, the video game doesn't matter ... I play it to escape reality for a few hours a week ... how one reacts to those stressors in combat can and does matter, a lot, often with permanent results.

The "plausible randomness and uncertainty" in MechWarrior is primarily provided by the 23 other players, especially the opposing team. How you adapt to your teammates and the opposing team determines victory. Additional variables should be kept to a minimum.

Your analogy comparing firing a rifle at a target 400-600m away while moving or jumping and firing a weapon system rigidly attached to and controlled by a gyro-stabilized combat vehicle is flawed. A more appropriate analogy would be firing the M2 mounted on a Stryker's stabilized remote weapon system. If a vehicle's (or 'mech's) gyro and targeting system are properly calibrated, the weapon will always hit where it is aimed, and often much better than the person operating it possibly could (compared to, say, an M2 mounted on a pintle).

Hundreds of years ago, thousands of years in the Inner Sphere, scientists and mathematicians figured out how to predict how things with mass will behave in certain environments. At the quantum and sub-atomic particle level, Schrodinger's uncertainty principle applies, but I don't think this applies to 100 ton 'mechs or even 1kg C-AC/2 burst projectiles. If there was a way to see, feel, or measure atmospheric effects such as wind in game, so that they could be compensated for, then I would agree that they should be in the game.

Gyros work regardless of whether the object they are attempting to stabilize is in contact with the ground or not. I'm going to guess that you've used gyro-stabilized binoculars. To someone unused to holding them, they make your hands and wrists ache over time because the gyro is constantly trying to correct the natural movement of your hands and hold the binoculars still. In a battlemech, the gyro works in concert with pilot input, so that it's not constantly working against the desired forces used to accelerate or turn the 'mech.

I agree that the gyro is not solely responsible for stabilization, the whole 'mech does this, but the gyro does attempt to compensate for the vibration caused by firing the jump jets ... once the jets stop firing, the core of the chassis is stabilized (incidentally, I don't think that it should be instantaneous, but that's a different discussion). After that, the myomer and actuators are responsible for positioning the weapon system.

An argument could be made that the reticule shake is not from the 'mech, but the mechwarrior being shaken when the 'mech is jumping or being hit by weapons.

I am enjoying this discourse, but I think in the end, we are going to end up "agreeing to disagree" on how much randomness should be in the game. I would much rather get my 'mech blown up because I got myself into a bad situation and my opponent was more skilled than to have any significant amount of randomness determine my success or failure. When I fail, while I might see some things that were beyond my control (my teammates and I were stupid in that situation, for example), I still blame myself for getting into that situation, try to figure out how to do better next time, and try to improve. I don't want a random factor imparted on this.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 10 July 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[Vermaxx]

Jets are next to worthless already - they're abused because their utility is long gone. People use them like Tribes jets to snap turn because they can't get serious air, or make a major relocation, or anything you could do in previous games.

I don't need the jets from MW3, which were by the way glorious. I would settle for the jets from Multiplayer Battletech - jets were a button press. Press button, go to max height, come back down in a controlled drop. No damage on impact. Flight was an elliptical, not a poptart.

How does this balance? You can't cut thrust mid air. You choose to jump, your dumb arse is up there for everyone to see the whole time. Solves poptarting issues instantly. Makes doing an exoturn a real risk. Actually lets PGI put back some height so jets can get over the rocks we can't walk over.

[Cavendish]

I liked this version of JJs:

[wanderer]

Quote

IMO, jump jet height should start at a negative value for 1-2 jets (aka, they still output a constant thrust/jet, but you need a certain number of jets to overcome the mech's weight). Like so:

One jet is precisely how much thrust it takes to get a 'Mech minimally airborne.

That's part of why jets vary in tonnage as you go up in 'Mech weight. It takes the equivalent of 2 smaller jets (twice the tonnage) to get minimal lift for a 60-85 tonner vs a 20-55 one, and four for a 90+.

Strap .5 ton worth of jet on a Cataphract and it wouldn't get off the ground. It's already factored in.

[Yokomohoyo]

Void Angel, on 09 July 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

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.

I think that both you and PGI are making a mistake by making BattleMechs into super-tanks because if I wanted to pilot a super-tank I would get into an Ogre Heavy Tank. BattleMechs are superior to tanks because they are hybrids of tanks and infantry. BattleMechs have the armor, weapons, accuracy and torso twist of tanks with the mobility of infantry plus increased speed, the ability to jump long distances and the ability to go we no tank or infantry can go. The high mobility of the BattleMechs in the BattleTech canon has been pointed out in this thread by several people like stjobe, Joseph Mallan, etc.

I agree that BattleTech is retro-futurism but MechWarrior Online doesn’t have to make the same mistake of a game trapped in the past. This is where PGI should use common sense, logic and reason instead of using the tabletop rulebook as an authoritative reference for this game. There are simple things that can make MechWarrior Online feel futuristic and high tech like getting rid of the movement and sensors nerfs plus zoom for all weapon ranges, sensors better than their modern counter parts, weapon speed and ranges better than their modern counter parts instead of having missiles slower than a portable LAW from the 1980s. More complex things can be done like having GPS navigation for fastest route, autopilot for fastest route, collision warning, targeting computer that tells you where and when you need to fire to hit a fast moving target like the one in the X-Wing computer game from the 1990s, etc. PGI should also use common sense, logic and reason to get rid of Gauss Rifle explosion that makes absolutely no sense.

ReXspec, on 09 July 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

A single playstyle that is free of risk, counter, or random variables dominating a simulation like this is NOT good for the game. It is cancerous and doesn't breed creativity.

These are words of wisdom but your arguments against jump-sniping are not. You are using the BattleTech canon instead of common sense. Your arguments for the problem of jump-sniping are for a human sniper using a traditional scope. An M1 Abrams can keep its gun on target even with the enormous amounts of shake created by its tracks. It is a common misconception that gun recoil affects an aircraft and it was debunked here:
http://www.stripes.c...-fired-1.152557
Instead of nerfing everything that works like jump-sniping, PGI should provide the tools needed so that all types of playstyles are as effective as jump-sniping.

YueFei, on 09 July 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

It's not that jump sniping is overpowered. Nothing wrong with mechs sniping, right? And nothing wrong with multiple mechs working in unison as a team to clear cover and shoot and pull back behind cover quickly, right?

The problem is that other ways of playing are hobbled. Going without JJs, you get stuck on all kinds of terrain. It's difficult to even do a berm drill smoothly and quickly. You can corner peek, but there's only so many corners to peek from at a given position on a map, and so if all of your team is non-JJ mechs, it's harder to maneuver together to concentrate fire. If you guys have to corner peek one at a time, tripping over each other, it's not going to be as effective as a team that crests a ridgeline together in a firing line to focus fire targets down.

Finally the voice of reason! The problem is the sensor and movement nerfs have made jump sniping overpowered because they avoid the sensor and movement nerfs by jumping in the air and shooting what they can see before returning to an almost impossible to rush cover that kills all sensor lock on them.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

Randomness does not challenge skill, it levels the playing field between those with skill and those without.

These are words of wisdom let’s hope they do not fall on deaf ears.

ReXspec, on 10 July 2014 - 12:51 AM, said:

Judging by Schrodinger's "uncertainty principle" no, it's not. Much of science is not as linear or static as you think it is.

Warning reading the information below might cause confusion, boredom and drowsiness so read it at your own risk. In theory Schrödinger’s equation can determine the location of an electron with reasonable exactitude and if you can use science to locate something as small and as fast moving as an electron then something as big and slow as a mech shouldn’t be a problem. Science is about exactitude and precision although it allows for systematic and random errors. This quote from informationphilosopher.com further explains the importance of predictability in science: “Predictability is an important characteristic of law-governed phenomena. It is an essential part of the scientific method, sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive-experimental-observation method.”. I know your intent and your use of Schrodinger's uncertainty principle in your argument is wrong. For your argument you want to use entropy which is a measure of disorder or chaos. However it does not invalidate Kageru Ikazuchi’s argument that science is predictable. I really hated my physical chemistry classes but I learned something.

[wanderer]

Amusingly enough, 'Mechs were not originally built to fight while leaping about (the first jumpers had a nasty habit of breaking their legs on landing- sound familiar?). They sure as heck never ended up built to fire accurately in the air- a jumping 'Mech is propelled in a rather non-aerodynamic and fundamentally unstable way that trying to adjust for firing only tends to hose up, something that makes midair shots in a 'Mech tremendously rough- even if a 'Mech recently jumped, it's a serious effort to keep it even remotely stable enough to fire. Never mind WHILE it's jumping- the act of going airborne actually is a rough, unpleasant affair that takes constant attention from a pilot and overworking the gyro to avoid tumbling the thing off it's thrust and faceplanting.

Flying a 'Mech through the air is NOT graceful. It's only methods of lift and balance come from applications of thrust, and there's nothing else that counters Newton's laws when it's up there. Gunning for someone in midair should be more spray and pray and less 360 noscope headshot, LOL.

[Heffay]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

Your analogy comparing a 'mech to an infantryman is flawed. The chaos of the battlefield should NOT affect how a weapon system (in this case, a 'mech) operates. A rifle operates precisely the same way whether fired from a stand by an expert sniper on the range or fired by a nervous, frustrated, distracted soldier in the middle of a fire fight. The bullet departs the muzzle in measurable, observable, and generally predictable path. Some of the "random factors" that you say should affect aim do ... at the hand-mouse interface, not in the game itself. It is not the same, and these factors are much more amplified on a true battlefield, but adrenaline, excitement, confusion, frustration, and sensory overload are all factors that can and do affect video game players. Just like soldiers, the ones that can do well in a stressful situation are the ones who can maintain a steady balance between staying aware of the environment around them while controlling the things that they can actually control and using those things to defeat the enemy.

Bingo.

[Cimarb]

Heffay, on 09 July 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Well, that is just downright dangerous. Without jump jets to feather falls and align the legs, it's a guaranteed tumble. That's why non-jump jet mechs can't jump at all.

Which is why my non-JJ mech tumbles every time I jump down a ledge/cliff, right?... You are being non-sensical in this argument.

Deathlike, on 10 July 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

You really don't want to know.

It's funny, because I defend him, and then he argues with me about something silly in the same thread - might have even been the same page...

wanderer, on 10 July 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:

One jet is precisely how much thrust it takes to get a 'Mech minimally airborne.

That's part of why jets vary in tonnage as you go up in 'Mech weight. It takes the equivalent of 2 smaller jets (twice the tonnage) to get minimal lift for a 60-85 tonner vs a 20-55 one, and four for a 90+.

Strap .5 ton worth of jet on a Cataphract and it wouldn't get off the ground. It's already factored in.

I generally agree with this, but I would actually like if PGI took weights into account. Say every 0.5 tons of JJ equals 20 tons of thrust. That would seem about right, with one jump jet countering the weight of a 20, 40, 60 and 80 ton mech.

That means a single jump jet on one of those mechs would be useful for feathering a fall, but not able to actually give it any appreciable height by "jumping". Then, after the weight of the mech was overcome, additional JJ thrust is gravy, and gives the ability to take off from the ground.

Now, with a 25 ton mech, that same single 0.5 ton JJ only counters 20 tons of its weight, so the second JJ would lose effectively 5 tons of its thrust, making it reach slightly less height than the 20 ton mech. A 30 ton mech with two 0.5 ton JJs would have a net 10 tons of thrust, compared to the 20 ton mech that had a net 20 tons of thrust with the same jets. Does that make sense?

[Void Angel]

ReXspec, on 10 July 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

Look, I'm not going to try to hash out what we define as "realistic" or falls under the definition of "simulation" so, I'll just go back to my original point to act as some sort of reference to what is plausible from both a realism standpoint, and a balance standpoint.

I appreciate that P.G.I. at least looked in the right direction, but a look, or a half-step is not enough. The bottom line is, a weapon system on a 'mech should not be perfectly accurate on the way up OR down during a jump, jumpjets (especially regular ones) should be emitting heat, 'mechs should be falling over during a botched jump, and non-reinforced legs should be taking far more damage. It makes no sense from a balance or realism standpoint to try what they're already doing unless the devs are simply trying to justify an absurd combat manuever that was rarely done in the first place because it was difficult to achieve for these very reasons--let alone the fact that their were very few 'mechs that were designed to jump-snipe in the first place.

Well, I dealt with the definition of "realism" and the definition of "simulation" because they were central to the argument you were making at the time...

Regardless, I'm not sure I can buy into everything you're telling me here - sure, more stuff probably needs to be done, but it's not terribly useful to criticize a part because it's not the whole howitzer. I mean, the accuracy of our gyro-stabilized weapons isn't the same issue as jump jet efficiency, which is all that's being addressed here. Or knockdown/fall mechanics (which are hopefully coming back some day, but removed for good reason.) The proposed jump jets will generate heat, as well, and I have to ask again, what do you mean by "supposed to?" The tabletop rules (which deal with balance, as the fiction does not) do not have punitive leg damage, and the only time you even have to make a roll to land is when you have damaged actuators, or for Death from Above attacks (falling isn't certain even then.) Any Mechwarrior in tabletop could fire weapons while jumping, and it was only significantly hard to hit if the target was moving fast and/or at longer ranges - not enough to justify some novel author's assertion that only a tiny fraction of Mechwarriors could score hits while jumping. The movement modifier for jumping was only one point more than the modifier for moving past two-thirds of max speed. Sure, that's +1 on a 2d6 bell curve, but it's still not a huge difference.

Now, if you're referencing the confused body of contradictory ad hoc fiction that is "Canon," then I gotta remind you, man, those authors didn't care jack squat about balance. They cared about things like "pacing," and drama, and character development. They cared about the plot. They're not even qualified to offer an opinion on how difficult jump sniping should be in-game - they just wanted the hero to be special. Trying to imitate the books won't get us a balanced game, so they cannot tell us how MWO is "supposed to" be.

[wanderer]

Let me also add some historical context here.

I might also note that JJ tonnage variance is a changeover from the way, way, way old Battledroids rules. Original construction rules had JJ's simply as .5 ton per, with no limits.

Obviously, this led to some silly hoppers with virtually no ground movement that could jump entire maps in one shot.

Cue 60+ ton 'Mechs having heavier jets and the rule that your max Jump MP = waking MP (also, JJ's had to be in the torso/legs - there are ancient designs with arm jets that are now apocryphal, like the Ostroc MK II).

It's more a case that 55 tons or less = .5 tons as a minimum, since fractional tonnage beyond that was a real no-no until the Clans came along (and even then, .25 was it). Otherwise, 20-35 might very well have been .25 ton JJ's. Alas, it was not to be because math and by the time .25 was considered OK, it'd have broken dozens of lighter designs. Thus, we're stuck with it here, which does tend to make medium/lights one class of jets, heavies a second, and REALLY heavy types.

Why the odd division? Because engine efficiency changes at those points as well. In original TT, 55 tonners are the heaviest ones not to lose capacity at the 5/8 speed, 85 tonners 4/6. Jump jet tonnage reflected that as well.

[Void Angel]

Yokomohoyo, on 10 July 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

I think that both you and PGI are making a mistake by making BattleMechs into super-tanks because if I wanted to pilot a super-tank I would get into an Ogre Heavy Tank. BattleMechs are superior to tanks because they are hybrids of tanks and infantry. BattleMechs have the armor, weapons, accuracy and torso twist of tanks with the mobility of infantry plus increased speed, the ability to jump long distances and the ability to go we no tank or infantry can go. The high mobility of the BattleMechs in the BattleTech canon has been pointed out in this thread by several people like stjobe, Joseph Mallan, etc.

I agree that BattleTech is retro-futurism but MechWarrior Online doesn’t have to make the same mistake of a game trapped in the past. This is where PGI should use common sense, logic and reason instead of using the tabletop rulebook as an authoritative reference for this game.

The thing is, neither I nor PGI are making BattleMechs into giant super-tanks - Ross Babcock III and Jordan Weisman did that when they created the game. Yes, these are walking, robotic super-tanks, but they still fulfill the armor (tank) role on the battlefield. So while they do have some unique capabilities, they're also vulnerable to infantry swarming, faster than infantry, less agile than infantry (particularly jump/battlearmor infantry,) et cetera. It's integral to the way the rules treat BattleMechs. So while Battlemechs are more agile than a tracked tank, they're still armor, not power armor - which is precisely the point PGI just made.

PGI is using reason and logic to balance the game, using the old rules merely as a starting point to help maintain a "MechWarrior" feel. That's why they're scaling the jets on both engine rating and number of jets, for example. It is many, if not most, of the opponents of the proposed changes who often thump the Holy Word of Fasa to justify their dislike.

wanderer, on 10 July 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

Why the odd division? Because engine efficiency changes at those points as well. In original TT, 55 tonners are the heaviest ones not to lose capacity at the 5/8 speed, 85 tonners 4/6. Jump jet tonnage reflected that as well.

This is exactly the reason the Locust has proportionally weaker legs for its tonnage as well. =)

Edited by Void Angel, 10 July 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[ReXspec]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 10 July 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

Words.

Key points to cover:

- Comparing infantry vs. a battlemech.

- Appealing to players as the plausible randomness and uncertainty.

- Appealing to a "mega gyro."

- Not realizing that players adapting to randomness of a fine nature can add to the challenge.

Okay. Since you've discounted my comparison of a rifleman hurtling through the air, lets go another direction: A tank. If a tank (such as an abrams tank) has a gyro and a jumpjet, do you think the crew is going to be able fire a shot accurately while it is hurtling through the air? Sure, a gyro would keep it upright, but I don't think it would make aiming the main gun any easier.

Players are only one aspect of randomness though. Again, if we're talking about how weapons should work, they shouldn't be perfectly freaking accurate. Especially on a moving 'mech platform with legs, and the huge ballistic, tank-sized weapon systems that it fires. Again, a targeting computer, a gyro, and anchoring systems (I.E. actuators) can serve to reduce these random ballistic forces, but they shouldn't eliminate them entirely. I think applying some sort of fine, random ballistics would add to the challenge.

If we're talking about the forces of a gyro vs. the forces that the 'mech is putting on the gyro, I think the 'mech would take precedence in that case. Sure, a gyro would help keep a 'mech upright, but I don't think it would turn a 'mech into a walking, immovable, metal object. Especially not with the forces that are being put on the 'mech all the time. If the gyro was about half of the 'mech's weight, then I could see your argument making sense.

Yokomohoyo, on 10 July 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

PGI should also use common sense, logic and reason to get rid of Gauss Rifle explosion that makes absolutely no sense.

A Gauss Rifle explodes because it carries a built-in power generator (that said, with a built-in generator, there should be no charge). If that power generator get's roughed up, it destabilizes and blows up.

Yokomohoyo, on 10 July 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

These are words of wisdom but your arguments against jump-sniping are not. You are using the BattleTech canon instead of common sense. Your arguments for the problem of jump-sniping are for a human sniper using a traditional scope. An M1 Abrams can keep its gun on target even with the enormous amounts of shake created by its tracks. It is a common misconception that gun recoil affects an aircraft and it was debunked here:
http://www.stripes.c...-fired-1.152557
Instead of nerfing everything that works like jump-sniping, PGI should provide the tools needed so that all types of playstyles are as effective as jump-sniping.

Actually that article was stating that recoil doesn't effect movement... not targeting. Of course pilots can compensate for targeting errors produced by movement and recoil: Because they've been trained to do it through practice. They've adapted to that fine bit of randomness. That does not mean those vehicles are immune to targeting errors (such as crosshair "shake") by outside forces.

Yokomohoyo, on 10 July 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

Warning reading the information below might cause confusion, boredom and drowsiness so read it at your own risk. In theory Schrödinger’s equation can determine the location of an electron with reasonable exactitude and if you can use science to locate something as small and as fast moving as an electron then something as big and slow as a mech shouldn’t be a problem. Science is about exactitude and precision although it allows for systematic and random errors. This quote from informationphilosopher.com further explains the importance of predictability in science: “Predictability is an important characteristic of law-governed phenomena. It is an essential part of the scientific method, sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive-experimental-observation method.”. I know your intent and your use of Schrodinger's uncertainty principle in your argument is wrong. For your argument you want to use entropy which is a measure of disorder or chaos. However it does not invalidate Kageru Ikazuchi’s argument that science is predictable. I really hated my physical chemistry classes but I learned something.

Have you read the works of Erwin Schrodinger? He really is quite an ingenious man. His work was based on the principle that no human observer can possibly observe every method or outcome. He was seeing the world the way it actually was, not the way conventional scientists wanted it to be. To quote Dr. Schrodinger: "If nature is more complicated than a game of chess, a belief to which one tends to incline, then a physical system cannot be determined by a finite number of observations. But in practice a finite number of observations is all that we can make. All that is left to determinism is to believe that an infinite accumulation of observations would in principle enable it completely to determine the system. Such was the standpoint and view of classical physics, which latter certainly had a right to see what it could make of it. But the opposite standpoint has an equal justification: we are not compelled to assume that an infinite number of observations, which cannot in any case be carried out in practice, would suffice to give us a complete determination."

To apply that with Mechwarrior, sure we can't apply chaos theory to this game (as I think that would take overly complex and an astronomical amount of coding) but P.G.I could make at least some things adhere to reality: Such as ballistics, recoil, or the estimated forces acting on a 'mech while flying through the air. Giving the game this sort of randomness would not take away from the game, but add a new element that players would need to adapt to.

Void Angel, on 10 July 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Well, I dealt with the definition of "realism" and the definition of "simulation" because they were central to the argument you were making at the time...

Which is why I decided to segway that topic into what would be plausible and implausible rather then try to settle on a definition.

Void Angel, on 10 July 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Regardless, I'm not sure I can buy into everything you're telling me here - sure, more stuff probably needs to be done,

Well, at least we agree on that.

Void Angel, on 10 July 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

but it's not terribly useful to criticize a part because it's not the whole howitzer. I mean, the accuracy of our gyro-stabilized weapons isn't the same issue as jump jet efficiency, which is all that's being addressed here. Or knockdown/fall mechanics (which are hopefully coming back some day, but removed for good reason.)

I decided to stick with the Jump Jet issue since over-saturating this topic with other issues (such as pinpoint damage) would be arbitrarily overwhelming. Yes, I know the issue is multifaceted.

Void Angel, on 10 July 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

The proposed jump jets will generate heat, as well...

No. They don't. If you read Paul's original post, they simply prevent the 'mech from cooling down. They do not add or generate heat.

Void Angel, on 10 July 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

and I have to ask again, what do you mean by "supposed to?" The tabletop rules (which deal with balance, as the fiction does not) do not have punitive leg damage, and the only time you even have to make a roll to land is when you have damaged actuators, or for Death from Above attacks (falling isn't certain even then.) Any Mechwarrior in tabletop could fire weapons while jumping, and it was only significantly hard to hit if the target was moving fast and/or at longer ranges - not enough to justify some novel author's assertion that only a tiny fraction of Mechwarriors could score hits while jumping. The movement modifier for jumping was only one point more than the modifier for moving past two-thirds of max speed. Sure, that's +1 on a 2d6 bell curve, but it's still not a huge difference.

"Not a huge difference?" I don't know what ruleset you ran by, but a jump-sniping roll was incredibly difficult to pull off. Discounting the roll you would need to make simply to HIT the pilot you're aiming at, you had to make a piloting check (which had a rather high DC) just to jump and shoot, then you had to make another piloting check to keep from falling over and damaging your 'mech. Oh and let's NOT forget that if you did (by some miracle) hit the 'mech you were aiming at, you had to make a ridiculous DC for the shot to do any kind of lethal damage. You could mitigate this difficulty by equipping your 'mech with reinforced legs, improved jump-jets, a targeting computer, and improved gyro, but even then the rolls were still difficult to make.

You can argue that it is hard to translate "difficulty" from a TT format over to a FPS format, but I think we can all agree that jump-sniping in M.W.O., at present, is not NEARLY as difficult to pull off as it is in other iterations of Battletech (not counting MW4 because that whole game revolved around jump-sniping, and no heat/ammo servers. The removal of basic jump mechanics in MW4 made it stupid-easy to jump-snipe).

Void Angel, on 10 July 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Bad fanfiction. Plz stahp.

For future reference, I'm referencing alternative rulesets in other Battletech games that could act as a reference point for how jump-jets could work in M.W.O. I'm not using the novels as a framework or guide for the mechanics of how jump-jets should work in M.W.O.

Edited by ReXspec, 10 July 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[ReXspec]

wanderer, on 10 July 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

Amusingly enough, 'Mechs were not originally built to fight while leaping about (the first jumpers had a nasty habit of breaking their legs on landing- sound familiar?). They sure as heck never ended up built to fire accurately in the air- a jumping 'Mech is propelled in a rather non-aerodynamic and fundamentally unstable way that trying to adjust for firing only tends to hose up, something that makes midair shots in a 'Mech tremendously rough- even if a 'Mech recently jumped, it's a serious effort to keep it even remotely stable enough to fire. Never mind WHILE it's jumping- the act of going airborne actually is a rough, unpleasant affair that takes constant attention from a pilot and overworking the gyro to avoid tumbling the thing off it's thrust and faceplanting.

Flying a 'Mech through the air is NOT graceful. It's only methods of lift and balance come from applications of thrust, and there's nothing else that counters Newton's laws when it's up there. Gunning for someone in midair should be more spray and pray and less 360 noscope headshot, LOL.

^ THIS. ^

^ A THOUSAND TIMES THIS. ^

Edited by ReXspec, 10 July 2014 - 04:35 PM.

[Void Angel]

ReXspec, on 10 July 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

No. They don't. If you read Paul's original post, they simply prevent the 'mech from cooling down. They do not add or generate heat.

Quote

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.

Read it again; you skimmed over an important detail - I wonder what else you missed?

ReXspec, on 10 July 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

"Not a huge difference?" I don't know what ruleset you ran by, but a jump-sniping roll was incredibly difficult to pull off. Discounting the roll you would need to make simply to HIT the pilot you're aiming at, you had to make a piloting check (which had a rather high DC) just to jump and shoot, then you had to make another piloting check to keep from falling over and damaging your 'mech. Oh and let's NOT forget that if you did (by some miracle) hit the 'mech you were aiming at, you had to make a ridiculous DC for the shot to do any kind of lethal damage. You could mitigate this difficulty by equipping your 'mech with reinforced legs, improved jump-jets, a targeting computer, and improved gyro, but even then the rolls were still difficult to make.

You can argue that it is hard to translate "difficulty" from a TT format over to a FPS format, but I think we can all agree that jump-sniping in M.W.O., at present, is not NEARLY as difficult to pull off as it is in other iterations of Battletech (not counting MW4 because that whole game revolved around jump-sniping, and no heat/ammo servers. The removal of basic jump mechanics in MW4 made it stupid-easy to jump-snipe).

For future reference, I'm referencing alternative rulesets in other Battletech games that could act as a reference point for how jump-jets could work in M.W.O. I'm not using the novels as a framework or guide for the mechanics of how jump-jets should work in M.W.O.

Which rulesets, and how can you say a ruleset for a completely different game is an authoritative reference for how MWO is "supposed to be?"

You might also want to brush up on the Battletech tabletop rules. Yes, Jumping shots were harder, but you only had a one higher attacker modifier than if you had Run. Whether the shot was very hard depended MUCH more on the speed of your target, the cover it was in, whether it had Jumped, and if you had suffered various forms of critical damage. No rolls were needed to land (unless in rubble) after an attack, no Piloting check was needed to fire while Jumping, Improved Gyro merely protected against hits, and Reinforced Legs lessens damage from Death from Above and Kick attacks - landing as part of Jumping movement does not damage legs, and Improved Jump Jets merely allow you to buy reduced heat and 50% more jump range with twice the tonnage/space per jet.

What all this means is that if a Locust ran over open terrain and ended its movement in forest, it might have as much as a plus seven modifier in its own right before we even looked at our own 'Mech's actions - and even at Close range, we're probably going to have to roll boxcars. On the other hand, if we're shooting at an Atlas that just Walked two hexes and turned at the corner of a city block three hexes away, we're going to have a whopping 72.2% chance to hit him even if we were running full-bore down the street - jumping would result in a 58.3% chance, a difference of only 13.9%. A significant difference, but it pales in significance next to the other modifiers involved: if we had simply walked, . Even if our Atlas example occurred at Medium range, you'd have a 41.9/28% chance to hit. It's only after we get to target numbers higher than 8 that we'll see a truly staggering miss chance with that extra +1 modifier. Conversely, if we were an Elite 'Mechwarrior with a Targeting computer, we'd still have a 72% chance to hit that Atlas while Jumping at Medium range - and a called shot would still have a 28% hit rate.

Of course, called shots brings up pinpoint damage in MWO - but that's a separate issue from jump jet efficiency, and I don't think it's reasonable of us to criticize a change that specifically corrects the over-utility of that one system for not including other areas we find to be of concern. It's always best to change one variable at a time, even if your interval between changes is low - like a two-week patch cycle.

PS: "fanfiction, stahp?" Really? Canon fiction is by definition not fanfic, so while you didn't try to argue a point based on it, you did misrepresent me. Don't do that crap.

Edited by Void Angel, 10 July 2014 - 05:27 PM.

[ReXspec]

Void Angel, on 10 July 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

Words.

Okay, let's stop mincing the phrase "supposed to be" and over-complicating the issue. Forgive me for hitting the "reset button" on this discourse (so to speak) but I am a simple grunt. A debate becomes hard to follow when you are addressing multiple facets of an argument at once as opposed to dealing with one facet at a time. That said, I'm going to start from the beginning here (try to get a handle on your opinion of the problem, if you will).

Before we start mincing the phrase "the way jump jets are supposed to be," and before you try to define what that might mean to me, let me ask you a question: Do you think jump jets and jump-sniping will be "balanced" after the proposed rework? If not, what do you think the problem with jump jets, the jump sniping maneuver, and the proposed rework is? If so, why do you think jump jets, jump-sniping and the proposed rework are fine?

Please try to keep the answer short... I know I like to go off the rails with long essays (it's a habit that I am desperately trying to curtail), but I'm simply trying to cover these three facets in "nutshell" terms.

Edited by ReXspec, 10 July 2014 - 05:54 PM.

[YueFei]

ReXspec, on 09 July 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

I'm not saying jump-sniping needs to be eliminated, I'm simply saying it needs to be made into a high-risk, high-reward manuever; it needs to be made more difficult to pull off. And as long as jump-jets produce no heat, continue not to fall over after a bad landing, and the crosshair remains perfectly stable on the way down during a jump, that will NEVER happen. Jump-sniping will continue to be a low-risk, high-reward maneuver.

And I think Bishop has a good idea with his reticule shake that gradually subsides over a short period of time after releasing the jets. That way a jump shot requires you to jump higher so you can wait a bit as the reticule settles for the shot.

Let's look at jump shots using lasers. Because of the reticule shake on the way up, you can't really shoot accurately until letting off the jets. But letting off the jets and falling long enough to shoot for 1 full second of laser burn requires you to fall 5 meters. That means a mech using lasers and jump shooting has to jump 5 meters higher for his laser shot. That requires an extra ~2 seconds of vertical jump ascent, since the ascent is about ~2.5 meters/sec.

Jump shooting with lasers is actually not that low risk. You are exposed for an extra 3 seconds in the air, compared to someone using pin-point front-loaded-damage weapons, like PPC/AC/Gauss. The risk for laser jump shots is higher, and the reward is also lower, because lasers are damage-over-time, the guy you're shooting can move and twist and spread the damage. So your laser damage is less efficient at killing the targets.

3 seconds of additional exposure time to the enemy is a looong time. =/ That's *additional* exposure time. The total exposure time is even longer.

[ReXspec]

YueFei, on 10 July 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

And I think Bishop has a good idea with his reticule shake that gradually subsides over a short period of time after releasing the jets. That way a jump shot requires you to jump higher so you can wait a bit as the reticule settles for the shot.

Let's look at jump shots using lasers. Because of the reticule shake on the way up, you can't really shoot accurately until letting off the jets. But letting off the jets and falling long enough to shoot for 1 full second of laser burn requires you to fall 5 meters. That means a mech using lasers and jump shooting has to jump 5 meters higher for his laser shot. That requires an extra ~2 seconds of vertical jump ascent, since the ascent is about ~2.5 meters/sec.

Jump shooting with lasers is actually not that low risk. You are exposed for an extra 3 seconds in the air, compared to someone using pin-point front-loaded-damage weapons, like PPC/AC/Gauss. The risk for laser jump shots is higher, and the reward is also lower, because lasers are damage-over-time, the guy you're shooting can move and twist and spread the damage. So your laser damage is less efficient at killing the targets.

3 seconds of additional exposure time to the enemy is a looong time. =/ That's *additional* exposure time. The total exposure time is even longer.

With lasers no. But with front-end damage, insta-shot weapons? Yes. It's still low-risk.