

Jump Jet Comparisons In The New Skill Tree System
#21
Posted 10 February 2017 - 02:43 PM
And I want to pull my hair out when I see Russ retweeting people that say positive things that are just so... wrong.
#22
Posted 10 February 2017 - 02:43 PM
Maybe simply turning to gravity to earth-standard would fix things?
#23
Posted 10 February 2017 - 02:50 PM
At least, that's how Paul or Russ probably envisions it.
#24
Posted 10 February 2017 - 03:07 PM
Color me surprised. </sarcasm>
#25
Posted 10 February 2017 - 04:03 PM
Edited by oldradagast, 10 February 2017 - 04:03 PM.
#27
Posted 10 February 2017 - 05:10 PM
And the JJ tree needs either tripling of its effectiveness or a change to a flat figure so as to actually help class 1s and 2s. I dont think many people are complaing that mediums cant jump high enough, its mechs like my Heavy Metal. 10 tons of jets and its basically a waste, in fact im pretty sure my enforcer with 22 meters of jump height out jumps my heavy metal with its supposed 31 meters.
#28
Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:49 PM
I played around with my jester and it felt much more mobile.. but maybe that was because of the twisting boosts.. But i could swear i could get much higher and over things i couldn't before the points..
Like jumping out of the starting bowl on HPG.. i could go up and over the entire ridge with out landing.. with out i would have to land and hit um again.
#29
Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:51 PM
JC Daxion, on 10 February 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:
I played around with my jester and it felt much more mobile.. but maybe that was because of the twisting boosts.. But i could swear i could get much higher and over things i couldn't before the points..
Like jumping out of the starting bowl on HPG.. i could go up and over the entire ridge with out landing.. with out i would have to land and hit um again.
Of course I tested assaults. (duh)
Because JJs are only broken on assaults.
Because its been 4 years since they F* JJ class I and II.
Because I want to see if a fixx is finally here or not.
#30
Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:06 PM
My point is how do they work with the others..... Can using some points let you reduce a couple JJ's and add heat sinks for example.. maybe add another weapon, or a larger engine?
give and take... I didn't think the tree would make a 100 ton mech fly..
#31
Posted 10 February 2017 - 09:33 PM
Thanks for the video, have you tweeted this to Russ at all?
#32
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:30 PM
JC Daxion, on 10 February 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:
My point is how do they work with the others..... Can using some points let you reduce a couple JJ's and add heat sinks for example.. maybe add another weapon, or a larger engine?
give and take... I didn't think the tree would make a 100 ton mech fly..
1- in the conclusion I said the tree fails to address the main drawback of JJ class I and II.
2- 10 tons worth of JJ should make your assault mech able to JUMP. that is not a personal opinion. That is how it should be. Who is asking for flying?
3- When someone invests 10-15 skill nodes in JJs instead of all the weapons and durability quirks, they should get something out of it.... specially for an assault mech!!!
4- A whole branch of the tree IS broke because it does not do anything.
The fact that lights and medium benefit the most from JJs is a BIG problem with percentage based buffs.
These buffs should be a constant and absolute number. this way you can help the low performers while avoiding making the over-performers out of control.
#33
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:42 PM
1, If the whole tree is broke, Maybe that is a bug? Did you add that to the bug thread?
2, Perhaps now is a time to address JJ's as a whole? Because said Tree is added, maybe those that want to spend points on JJ's could be able to get larger mechs into better jumpers.. (something i am not against as a whole) But i certainly don't want to see the glory days of the Jumpsnipe meta come back either. Id rather not deal with the second coming of PPC+Gauss jumpsniping pros again.. that meta is bad enough in Poke mode.
3, Some nerf to smaller JJ's with a buff to the tree could be something that could work as long as 90 ton mechs didn't start to fly again. While the thought of a spider than can fly 150m is intriguing.. I remember how it was a bit OP.. though perhaps now with the rescale, and the lag hit reg fixes and such, those flying lights won't be so bad this time around. Basically think a smallish nerf to small and medium JJ's, with a larger buff to the tree, to make spending points add perhaps 2-3 JJ's worth of power? which would bring them able to jump a bit better than they can now. Leave the larger JJ's how they are and make the buffs more significant?
I did play around with the smaller mechs a tiny bit and they did seam to really fly.. I need to try some of my low JJ count mechs and see how it helps them.. But flyers.. are a bit wow... can practically jump from the floor of HPG up onto the radar tower... Jumping over the high walls is actually a thing...

*edit, one last thing.. (if said tree is broke, i couldn't really tell to be honest) For 3 tree's i would much rather see...
Boost in over all jump arc.. (i don't like the forward and hight split.. to me that is something that would just help bring back jump sniping)
Boost in rate.. yea,, going up quicker would be nice
New third tree.. FUEL! More duration which would help the height as well as high flyers being able to get softer landings, as they would not run out as quick.. Or perhaps it could be an entirely new thing.. like "landing reserves" that way you could peak out.. But have extra in the tank for when you land.. so not to make it that you can use it to jump higher persay.. but make it so you get softer landings.. combined with Shock obsorbers, that could let even assaults fly a bit higher with out breaking their legs on landings.
Edited by JC Daxion, 10 February 2017 - 10:58 PM.
#34
Posted 11 February 2017 - 08:36 PM
TercieI, on 10 February 2017 - 05:42 AM, said:
-HBK-IIC, NTG, SMN and HMN
(Very nicely done, OP)
A better way to nerf pop-tarting is to simply nerf the accuracy while in the air. The idea that you could aim and fire a multi ton weapon accurately without a stable base is ludicrous. Basic physics dictates that if you shift a 7 ton PPC by a few feet to get it on target it will in return shift your mech in the opposite direction causing you to rotate or tumble in mid-air. Thats what objects in free fall do when they push on something else. I could go over the actual physics, but that's a little much for a game discussion. The point is that if they simply killed the accuracy during a jump so that shots wouldn't necessarily go where your reticle is that would reflect the fact that you don't have a stable firing platform and moving those heavy weapons on target was causing a shift in the mech at the same time which can throw off your aim.
Also, I don't see how you fire a gauss rifle or an AC20 in the air without crashing. The recoil on such a weapon is massive. Take a look at a 70 ton tank like the M1 abrams firing its main cannon some time. it throws the whole tank backwards pretty hard. put that tank in the air and fire a cannon that is mounted on an arm, off center to its center of mass and the whole thing will spin and tumble causing a crash instead of a normal jump jet landing.
I'd rather not crash mechs for firing during a jump. though that would be realistic. the problem is then laser weapons would be more powerful because they have no recoil.
a simple nerf to accuracy would be consistent with the physics of the situation, though it ignores recoil. this would leave pop tarting as a viable maneuver, but only at close range where accuracy is not necessary. At close rang, pop tarting would not be OP since the enemy would likewise have a relatively easy shot at the jumping mech. Since the mech on the ground has no penalty to accuracy he can return fire with some effectiveness even though his time window to fire is very short.
As a bonus this also reflects the table top game mechanics more accurately, as jumping would cause a significant accuracy penalty to the jumping mech.
Pop tarting doesn't have to be eliminated completely as long as it doesn't give anyone an unfair advantage.
if pop tarting were balanced and just one more maneuver among many then we could power up the jump jets and let people steer their jumps. My suggestion is just let people turn right and left in air while jumping and use throttle up and down to cause the jump to lean forward or backwards so that you can control whether you are jumping up, forward, or backward and even change direction in air. These controls would be simple to use, and based on our current steering controls.
#35
Posted 11 February 2017 - 09:52 PM
4EVR, on 10 February 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:
Maybe PGI could incorporate a form a ghost heat when PPC's are fired within .9-1.3 seconds of jets firing. Helps discourage poptarting while not punishing non tarters too badly.[/color]
Edited by Sorbic, 11 February 2017 - 10:47 PM.
#36
Posted 11 February 2017 - 11:29 PM
Sorbic, on 11 February 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:
Maybe PGI could incorporate a form a ghost heat when PPC's are fired within .9-1.3 seconds of jets firing. Helps discourage poptarting while not punishing non tarters too badly.[/color]
Seems a bit...convoluted. Just make the jets shake linger a little longer when you come off of them and scale it by weight class (i.e. Lights behave as now on one end, Heavies have serious lingering shake on the other).
#37
Posted 12 February 2017 - 02:38 PM
As to pop-tarting, that meta was so over compensated for, what's left to do?
- Jump Jets prevent cooldown
- Jump Jets cause jitter
- We now have fall damage
- Gauss is now a skill shot
Four jumpjets should be able to jump 120m at 6m high or 30m at 24 meters high.
The tests I ran, I'd say jump jets fly 120m at about 3m with a peak about 6m with no damage. They will NOT fly forward 30m at 24m high. I think I can fly forward 30m at 20m high with FULL JJ tree.
Run around canyon network with your heavy metal. Jump around an atlast. An atlas should be about 18M high.
#38
Posted 13 February 2017 - 11:11 AM
#39
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users