49 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

As per usual PGI fashion, JJ are in the state they currently exist because of band aid layered on top of crusty, old band aid. It's band **** all the way down folks.

A summary of how JJ currently function:

• Forward jump distance is largely determined by forward speed, and only a bit by jump height.
  
• Vertical jump distance is determined by total number of jump jets, and while adding more gets you higher, it doesn't tend to get you to your maximum height until you've spent 3/4 of your fuel regardless.
  
• You have the same active burn time (about 3 seconds) regardless of how many JJ you have
  
• To get your maximum jump height with multiple JJ you *will* take fall damage.
  
• Screen shake during thrust, no shake during fall.
  
• On a per-jet basis JJ are more effective for lighter mechs.
  
• JJ can be "feathered" to climb almost any incline, even if you take only one.

So, what's the net effect for current JJ implementation? Taking one for fall damage prevention is pretty worthwhile, but taking multiples just doesn't significantly add to a mech's capability, especially for heavier mechs. My Jenner spends 2 tons on jets and gets 30 meter jump height, my Cataphract spends 4 tons on jets and gets 18 meters jump height. I'm sure some people applaud that, but when you use tonnage on equipment there should be a return on that investment. More jump jets = less heat sinks, less weapons, etc. Also the lackadaisical thrust of current JJ implementation means a lot of the time mechs are actually *easier* to hit when jumping, and the way screen shake is implemented means firing while jumping is not difficult either. Taking more than a single JJ is simply not worth it. The single JJ is a mobility boost, but multiple just aren't worth the return on investment for nearly all mechs.

How should they function? Well I'm not one who thinks that everything in this game should be derived from TT with no deviation, but at the same time I think TT has jump jet balance down really well. It actually feels like a trade-off with pros and cons, and they are entirely a defensive and mobility tool.

• Forward jump distance should scale linearly to number of jump jets and should be independent of ground speed.
  
• Vertical jump distance should scale linearly to number of jump jets, and should be determined by number of jets, not weight of mech. Heavier mechs pay more tons for heavier jets, and should get a commensurate return on investment.
  
• There should be a penalty to accuracy during the entire jump (not necessarily screen shake)
  
• Jumping should be relatively quick, with good thrust control, in order to make a jumping target actually difficult to hit.
  
• You shouldn't take fall damage from using your jump jets.

How would we accomplish this? I think it would be best if mechs had to come to a complete stop to activate jump jets, then after the space bar is pressed, you have a short window to pick a direction to jump. Full thrusters would be active during the entire assent, and you could pick your jump distance/height by tapping the space bar again to deactivate your jets.

[Violent Nick]

I don't agree with your conclusion regarding mechs coming to a full stop as that would be impractical but the rest of what you have written is sound. ;-)

Maybe no fall damage for meds and lights as apparently heavy jump-snipers aren't acceptable to some?

[Henree]

jj are currently where we would like them. there is nothing to fix. what are you talking about?
fall damage is negated by firing jump jets before you land, if you can' t then you are doing it wrong.

Edited by Henri Schoots, 26 July 2014 - 10:27 AM.

[MechB Kotare]

I agree with idea of totally remaking the JJ mechanism.

Current JJ system is broken. Promotes poptarting, instead of classic Jumpsniping we know from MW3, MW4, MWLL. Thrust was relatively faster than any JJ verson in MWO. The falling to the ground wasnt instant, which made jump sniping a battle maneuver with both advantage and disadvantage. Jump sniping type in MWO (poptarting) is just abusing the broken mechanism, minimazing the ammount of exposure. NOthing else tahn other FLD PP build has chance of delivering full alpha damage, when the poptarting is performed well.

JJ capable mechs are still better than nonJJmechs. Not much of a choice, when even 1 jj is enough to give you mobility advantage.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 26 July 2014 - 10:29 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Henri Schoots, on 26 July 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

jj are currently where we would like them. there is nothing to fix. what are you talking about?
fall damage is negated by firing jump jets before you land, if you can' t then you are doing it wrong.

Unless you are jumping to a higher level, attaining your max JJ height will cause fall damage, because you can't both get full height and reserve fuel.

Who is "we?"

Are you the PGI spokeperson?

[Wintersdark]

Lefty Lucy, on 26 July 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

As per usual PGI fashion, JJ are in the state they currently exist because of band aid layered on top of crusty, old band aid. It's band **** all the way down folks.

A summary of how JJ currently function:

• Forward jump distance is largely determined by forward speed, and only a bit by jump height.
  
• Vertical jump distance is determined by total number of jump jets, and while adding more gets you higher, it doesn't tend to get you to your maximum height until you've spent 3/4 of your fuel regardless.
  
• You have the same active burn time (about 3 seconds) regardless of how many JJ you have
  
• To get your maximum jump height with multiple JJ you *will* take fall damage.
  
• Screen shake during thrust, no shake during fall.
  
• On a per-jet basis JJ are more effective for lighter mechs.
  
• JJ can be "feathered" to climb almost any incline, even if you take only one.

So, what's the net effect for current JJ implementation? Taking one for fall damage prevention is pretty worthwhile, but taking multiples just doesn't significantly add to a mech's capability, especially for heavier mechs. My Jenner spends 2 tons on jets and gets 30 meter jump height, my Cataphract spends 4 tons on jets and gets 18 meters jump height. I'm sure some people applaud that, but when you use tonnage on equipment there should be a return on that investment. More jump jets = less heat sinks, less weapons, etc. Also the lackadaisical thrust of current JJ implementation means a lot of the time mechs are actually *easier* to hit when jumping, and the way screen shake is implemented means firing while jumping is not difficult either. Taking more than a single JJ is simply not worth it. The single JJ is a mobility boost, but multiple just aren't worth the return on investment for nearly all mechs.

No disagreement here.

Quote

How should they function? Well I'm not one who thinks that everything in this game should be derived from TT with no deviation, but at the same time I think TT has jump jet balance down really well. It actually feels like a trade-off with pros and cons, and they are entirely a defensive and mobility tool.

• Forward jump distance should scale linearly to number of jump jets and should be independent of ground speed.

Wat? This wouldn't make much sense. A mech moving 150 kph forward is going to travel a lot further forwards while jumping given a set amount of thrust in a given vector.

Quote

• Vertical jump distance should scale linearly to number of jump jets, and should be determined by number of jets, not weight of mech. Heavier mechs pay more tons for heavier jets, and should get a commensurate return on investment.

It should be determined by number and class of jets, countered by the tonnage of the mech. .5t JJ's generate xN of thrust, 1t JJ's generate 1.3xN thrust, 2t JJ's generating 1.6xN thrust, for example. Resultant height being determines as per physics: a=m/f.


Personally, I'd have JJ's generate a LOT of thrust, for a very short time, resulting in a large distance traveled quickly rather than less thrust over a long time (what we have) for the same target distance traveled slowly.

Quote

• There should be a penalty to accuracy during the entire jump (not necessarily screen shake)

Absolutely. Go, Cone Of Fire! Display via increasing reticle size, as is common in shooters everywhere.

Quote

• Jumping should be relatively quick, with good thrust control, in order to make a jumping target actually difficult to hit.

+1. As per my note above, lots of thrust over a very short burn.

Quote

• You shouldn't take fall damage from using your jump jets.

Disagree. Save fuel to slow your fall, or take damage. It raises the skill cap and makes things more interesting.

[Lefty Lucy]

Wintersdark, on 26 July 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Wat? This wouldn't make much sense. A mech moving 150 kph forward is going to travel a lot further forwards while jumping given a set amount of thrust in a given vector.

Hence my idea of requiring the mech to stop to activate jump jets. I'm not sure if that's the best way to do it, but it's more of the same idea that the benefits of having the jump jets should be commensurate to the cost of equipping them.

Allowing faster mechs to jump further with jump jets means that you're getting a bonus to jumping that doesn't stem solely from having the mass spent on the jump jets.

[SolasTau]

It depends on the flavor you want. JJ's in MWO feel very... Halo? Titanfall? Generic space FPS, that's the one. What they don't feel like is Mech Warrior or Battle Tech JJ's. This is most pronounced in seeing all these conventional FPS tactics materializing around games with a jump and hover mechanic, even without a hover mechanic. The point of JJ's in TT is to get behind enemy lines by leaping over walls, whether they are literal walls, mountains, or even lances of enemy 'mechs.

Furthermore, jumping in table top is a risky maneuver. You need to make a piloting check for the landing. If you make it, everything goes off without a hitch. If you roll a botch, which is anything from pressing too far forward on the stick to cutting the JJ's too soon, you fall, take damage, and fall over.

JJ's are supposed to be a daring, risk/reward mechanism. As they stand presently, they are bland with virtually no risk (can you feather your throttle? Yes? You're fine) and a clear cut LOS advantage, especially with spotters in the mix.

But y'know, nevermind the game balance aspect. For ME, it's about the flavor. Doing a daring jump with a lance of mechs to get behind the enemy line? That's MY kind of BattleTech. That's freakin' metal. This thing with the poptarting... is OBJECTIVELY lame.

Besides that. Fixing JJ's to be more in line with TT would pretty much END all the whining about LRMs. All the brawlers could just jump that annoying terrain and land in brawl range (or close to it) with the LRM machines, which would fix both the brawler issues of too much exposure time, and the LRM issues of not being threatened enough.

[Lefty Lucy]

SolasTau, on 26 July 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

Furthermore, jumping in table top is a risky maneuver. You need to make a piloting check for the landing.

This is incorrect. If you jump into water or rough terrain, but jumping in clear terrain or even forests incurs no piloting check.

[Mister Blastman]

Make jump jets exactly like they were in MW:LL. Profit.

[Koniving]

Lefty Lucy, on 26 July 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

How would we accomplish this? I think it would be best if mechs had to come to a complete stop to activate jump jets, then after the space bar is pressed, you have a short window to pick a direction to jump. Full thrusters would be active during the entire assent, and you could pick your jump distance/height by tapping the space bar again to deactivate your jets.

Agree with everything except this part (and not getting fall damage; even in tabletop bad jumpjet piloting rolls led to some painful circumstances. I still remember a Highlander landing on his cockpit. Nothing like a good ol' faceplant to say "You failed a Death from Above!"

Here, I think a better control scheme is once you press (and hold) the jumpjets (the delay in holding versus when it occurs is to give HSR a heads up to avoid the 'I jumpjetted so nothing hits me at take off' issue), they will lift you into the air. Now release. This results in taking off and consumes half of your jumpjet fuel automatically reaching half of your potential height and distance.

Or during the 'hold down', you can hold it until the set amount of fuel is allocated to your jump (and release) . Either way, whatever fuel is left can be used to reduce the fall as per normal (rather than I jumped, I stopped thrusting.)

While inertia could come into play, your ground speed ultimately would lose effect on your jump.

Although a combination of inertial and torso twist (with jump being in the direction of the torso instead of the legs) would be interesting.

Either way the result would definitely be quite a bit different today.

[Lefty Lucy]

Koniving, on 26 July 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Agree with everything except this part (and not getting fall damage; even in tabletop bad jumpjet piloting rolls led to some painful circumstances. I still remember a Highlander landing on his cockpit. Nothing like a good ol' faceplant to say "You failed a Death from Above!"

Here, I think a better control scheme is once you press (and hold) the jumpjets (the delay in holding versus when it occurs is to give HSR a heads up to avoid the 'I jumpjetted so nothing hits me at take off' issue), they will lift you into the air. Now release. This results in taking off and consumes half of your jumpjet fuel automatically reaching half of your potential height and distance.

Or during the 'hold down', you can hold it until the set amount of fuel is allocated to your jump (and release) . Either way, whatever fuel is left can be used to reduce the fall as per normal (rather than I jumped, I stopped thrusting.)

While inertia could come into play, your ground speed ultimately would lose effect on your jump.

Although a combination of inertial and torso twist (with jump being in the direction of the torso instead of the legs) would be interesting.

Either way the result would definitely be quite a bit different today.

Jumping into flat or forested terrain never incurred any penalties. Jumping into water, as moving into water in general, did. Since this game has no movement penalties in water at all, it would seem out of place to add a penalty to jumping into water.

[MechB Kotare]

Mister Blastman, on 26 July 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

Make jump jets exactly like they were in MW:LL. Profit.

http://youtu.be/zuJYupdkGsw?t=7m16s

7:16, for those who never experienced MWLL

[SolasTau]

Lefty Lucy, on 26 July 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

This is incorrect. If you jump into water or rough terrain, but jumping in clear terrain or even forests incurs no piloting check.

Considering the LARGE variety of things that count as "rough terrain," (craters, mountain sides, urban areas that aren't reinforced for 'mechs, wartorn battlefields, etc)I'll agree to disagree there. Though I will openly admit that most terrain MWO does not qualify being as much of it is relatively clear hard packed dirt. However, isn't there a penalty whenever jumping into a live fire fight? Or is that only if you've been hit that round? I know there's something with getting shot and jump piloting checks

[Angel of Annihilation]

Lefty Lucy, on 26 July 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

This is incorrect. If you jump into water or rough terrain, but jumping in clear terrain or even forests incurs no piloting check.

He does a point though. Basically he is saying, make them harder and require more skill to use, rather than make them less useful and I totally agree.

Honestly one major way would be to make it so that if you take a hit while in the air, you have a chance to lose your thrust balance and fall for heavy damage. Laser hits would have the lowest change to cause this but if you got hit in mid air by a Gauss, AC/20 or even a PPC (which actually has mass if you follow lore), you have maybe a 5-15% chance to fall. You would also make them have vector ability and jumping distance and height would be more tied to the JJs and less toward moving in a given direction.

This makes using JJs have more risk verse reward when engaged with the enemy which will reduce Jump Sniping as a tactic without removing it from the game. Basically, you want to jump to the top of that cliff, no problem, you can clear that 50m vertical wall without any issue....unless just as you clear that wall an enemy hits you with a Gauss round in mid air. Suddenly, your knocked askew and if you you don't recover, you go crashing to the ground from 50m up causing severe damage to your mech...ouch, better be sure next time that it is clear.

A system like this would allow JJs to be easily used as a mobility tool to flank the enemy or come at them from surprise angles. However it now makes in combat use very high risk, but then again, jumping entirely over the front line of the enemy to land 150m behind them might very well be worth the risk.

This is how I would like to see JJs in game.

[Lefty Lucy]

SolasTau, on 26 July 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

Considering the LARGE variety of things that count as "rough terrain," (craters, mountain sides, urban areas that aren't reinforced for 'mechs, wartorn battlefields, etc)I'll agree to disagree there. Though I will openly admit that most terrain MWO does not qualify being as much of it is relatively clear hard packed dirt. However, isn't there a penalty whenever jumping into a live fire fight? Or is that only if you've been hit that round? I know there's something with getting shot and jump piloting checks

Eh, every hex map I ever played on clearly marked rough terrain as rough.

You take piloting checks for >20 damage as normal when jump jetting, but I believe if you fail your piloting check you count as falling from your jump height, which can be pretty devastating.

[SgtMagor]

something has to me done with the current state of jump jets, OP is right there is not a significant amount of reward for stacking jump jets. even with 5 jump jets on an assault most of your burn time is wasted hovering, plus that's 10tons for Heavy metal, and 5tons for the Summoner. we are spending weight for the added mobility, and the heavy thru assaults class mechs jump jet performance is lacking if anything its hindering the mechs from getting their added mobility from jump jets.

[Angel of Annihilation]

MechB Kotare, on 26 July 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

http://youtu.be/zuJYupdkGsw?t=7m16s

7:16, for those who never experienced MWLL

You know I have been a Battletech fan since almost when they first came out and I have never seen MW:LL to this day. All I can is is how the hell did I miss that game. From the few Youtube videos I watch, MW:LL is the game I wanted MWO to be. Holy ****, vehicles, battle armor, huge maps, battles that actually feel like battles...WOW.

PGI get off your rear end and get to work. Honestly I can't understand how you had such a great example of how MWO should have been and missed the mark so far.

[Alistair Winter]

Henri Schoots, on 26 July 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

jj are currently where we would like them. there is nothing to fix. what are you talking about?

Paul, you forgot to log off your alt account.

[MechB Kotare]

Viktor Drake, on 26 July 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

You know I have been a Battletech fan since almost when they first came out and I have never seen MW:LL to this day. All I can is is how the hell did I miss that game. From the few Youtube videos I watch, MW:LL is the game I wanted MWO to be. Holy ****, vehicles, battle armor, huge maps, battles that actually feel like battles...WOW.

It's no shame man. People never really wanted to play that game, because they didnt like few things about it, like VTOL/Vehicle imbalance, animations etc.

But people never really understood, that MWLL was never finished.

In my eyes, MWLL was in right direction towards becomming next great MW series continuation. Especially because of the maps and mech designs, Weapons and lot more.

Edit:

And JJ mechanism prior to that....

Edited by MechB Kotare, 26 July 2014 - 12:17 PM.