228 replies to this topic

[Vlad Ward]

Nightbird, on 23 June 2021 - 07:13 AM, said:

I would assume the angle is directly vertical for simplicity, since you can walk backwards a bit to do a perfect vertical jump.

I got the usage for thrust_init from Navid's initial post, he hasn't replied to my question on his formula yet (whether it comes from PGI or the Cauldron)

Gotcha. I was talking to him a bit last night on Discord. The formula seems to be primarily derived from kinematics but scrunched a bit to get closer to empirical results. I'm not aware of direct PGI sources, though he may have poked into the game files a bit to find some values.

My own testing in the Testing Grounds doesn't seem to align with either the kinematic model or the equation Navid's posted. I may have to try again in a private match later.

[1453 R]

[redacted]

In that vein: while I'm not bothering to try and follow the math as I am neither hobbyist number cruncher nor Cauldron member and cannot meaningfully contribute to that discussion, does anyone know if it would be possible to increase initial thrust/kick nonlinearly with additional jets? So that mounting more jets gives you a bigger initial rocket kick. Or just do something, anything to fix the idiotic current behavior where it takes a few seconds for your thrust to 'kick in' and actually start elevating you?

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 24 June 2021 - 10:57 PM.
removed off-topic

[Khobai]

[redacted
]
I have given my reasons for why jumpjets should not be buffed. theyre the same reasons why jumpjets were nerfed. PGI nerfed jumpjets on heavies and assaults for a very good reason. To help prevent poptarting from becoming prevalent again. Poptarting was the least fun meta in this games history. PGI had to take extreme measures to eliminate poptarting and several of those measures have already been undone. All thats left is a blanket buff to jumpjets and the further erosion of ghost heat mechanics (or the delinking of ppc/gauss for ghost heat). Then its a poptart renaissance all over.

Do I think PGI was a little heavy handed with the jumpjet nerfs? absolutely. which is why I think jumpjet buffs should be handled on a case by case basis. rather than blanket buffs for every mech. not every mech that has jumpjets necessarily needs a buff.

Mechs with lower hardpoints certainly need jumpjet buffs more than mechs with higher hardpoints. Since its harder for mechs with lower hardpoints to clear terrain with their weapons. I would prioritize buffing the jumpjets on mechs with lower hardpoints first. Theres other factors as well that should determine if a mech gets jumpjet buffs but hardpoint location is the big one. Locked jumpjets are of course another problem but an easy solution to that is to unlock jumpjets on all omnimechs that arnt S variants.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 24 June 2021 - 10:54 PM.
off-topic removed

[1453 R]

Your reasons are bad and invalid. "Poptarts are bad so all jump jets should be terrible forever" is not a valid argument. Again - the Vapor Eagle exists. It tarts pops as effectively as any Dragon Slayer ever did. The Vapor Eagle is a better poptart than the Dragon Slayer ever was. It's faster, it deals more damage (if, admittedly, splash damage many top-end players find irrelevant), it takes up vastly less room in a group drop tonnage pool, and its weaker medium-'Mech armor is more than nullified by the nature of poptarting and by not being a Victor, a.k.a. a million-mile-tall Centrebuchet with bad hardpoint locations and terrible hitboxes.

And yet, despite being the best poptart-type 'Mech produced by PGI, the Pop Veeg has not taken over the meta by any stretch of the imagination.

Poptarting is an issue best fixed by addressing pinpoint accurate targeting, which is a problem that has plagued MWO since its inception in every conceivable meta. Leaving jumpjets terrible and an absolute waste of tonnage on everything but Veagles and Vipers is not a solution to poptart woes. This has been explained to you a thousand times and you have yet to come up with any decent counterpoint beyond "but brawling is good! Sniping is bad! So don't buff snipers!" despite the fact that jump jet performance being not-dooky is beneficial to everyone.

So try again. Do better. Or please exit the conversation.

[Khobai]

1453 R, on 23 June 2021 - 08:58 AM, said:

The Vapor Eagle is a better poptart than the Dragon Slayer ever was

And the Vapor Eagle certainly doesnt need to be buffed more. Case in point. Jumpjet buffs should be handled on a case by case basis.

[redacted]

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 24 June 2021 - 10:53 PM.
off-topic removed

[Armchair General]

The topic is "Lets Debate - The Jumpjet Overhaul".
Please stay on that topic and do not divert.
Seal clubbing is NOT part of this topic.
Thank you!

Edited by Armchair General, 23 June 2021 - 09:38 AM.

[1453 R]

[redacted]
Is it possible to adjust the thrust curve of jump jets, either as an aggregate whole or on a per-jet/jet count basis? I absolutely hate the fact that jets don't bother lifting you off the ground until you've burned half your bar. That initial slump makes jump jets unnecessarily annoying and worthless for short burns to try and maneuver in a close fight, or for when you're trying to escape a bad fight by going over the top of a nearby obstacle/cover.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 24 June 2021 - 10:51 PM.
off-topic removed

[Khobai]

1453 R, on 23 June 2021 - 09:39 AM, said:

Is it possible to adjust the thrust curve of jump jets

Yes by putting points in the jump jet skill tree.

The whole reason the jumpjet skill tree exists is to force you to make sacrifices in other areas if you want stronger jumpjets. PGI wanted to give players the option of having stronger jumpjets but at a cost to how many points you can put in other skill trees like the firepower tree.

The jumpjet skill tree obviously needs some adjustments to make it more worthwhile but the fundamental reason it exists is to force a tradeoff. The best way to fix jumpjets is a combination of jumpjet buffs for specific mechs and fixing the jumpjet skill tree so the tradeoff is more worthwhile.

A blanket buff to all jumpjets just buffs a bunch of mechs that really dont need buffs at all while not fixing any disparity issues and still not resolving the fact the jump jet skill tree isnt worth putting points into.

Edited by Khobai, 23 June 2021 - 10:19 AM.

[East Indy]

1453 R, on 23 June 2021 - 08:58 AM, said:

Poptarting is an issue best fixed by addressing pinpoint accurate targeting, which is a problem that has plagued MWO since its inception in every conceivable meta.

Pinpoint and alpha capacity, indeed. Jump jets were unfortunate collateral damage and have remained so for nearly 8 years!

[Nightbird]

I figured out the difference between my formula on page 2 and the game, as I suspected, gravity is "turned off" when JJs are on, so there is no pull of gravity in acceleration during the burn phase of the calculation, I updated my formula to the calculations below. Skip to my next post to see the results in a table format.

Edited by Nightbird, 23 June 2021 - 11:49 AM.

[Curccu]

East Indy, on 23 June 2021 - 10:06 AM, said:

Pinpoint and alpha capacity, indeed. Jump jets were unfortunate collateral damage and have remained so for nearly 8 years!

Pinpoint will not change, cause PGI can't code this ancient cryengine.

[Nightbird]

Based on my formula, I saw a constant of 0.83 between the theoretical numbers and the in game numbers, probably due to the game engine physics implementation, but these numbers are pretty accurate:




I tested the following mechs in game using F9 to spot the jump height, here are the results.

Mist lynx 6jj: 81
Cheeta 6jj: 65
Viper 8jj: 133
Huntsman 5jj: 62
Rifleman IIC 3jj: 33
Night Gyr 4jj: 35
Victor 4jj: 33
Highlander IIC 3jj: 24

Compared to Navid's ingame values, which are off by 10% in some instances (see 117 for Viper compared to 133 ingame) https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6412481

The values in my tables are accurate to +- 2%.

Edited by Nightbird, 23 June 2021 - 11:12 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

1453 R, on 23 June 2021 - 09:39 AM, said:

[redacted]
Is it possible to adjust the thrust curve of jump jets, either as an aggregate whole or on a per-jet/jet count basis? I absolutely hate the fact that jets don't bother lifting you off the ground until you've burned half your bar. That initial slump makes jump jets unnecessarily annoying and worthless for short burns to try and maneuver in a close fight, or for when you're trying to escape a bad fight by going over the top of a nearby obstacle/cover.

Nightbird, Navid, and I have opinions on the actual kinematics involved but the in-game values which are adjustable without engineering intervention are fairly static. It's the stuff in the OP.

Don't worry about Khobai. I'm pretty sure MWO Forums have an ignore list. It cleans up the boards - like a lot.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 24 June 2021 - 10:09 PM.
quote cleanup

[Nightbird]

An updated table of what would actually happen with the cauldron's proposal:

[Nightbird]

Here's my proposal:



For my thought process, I used a 55 tonner with 4JJs as my basis (vapor eagle without quirks) and kept the jump height unchanged at 44meters. From there, I considered lights and mediums both focused on mobility and kept their jump heights the same for the same % tonnage investment in JJs. From there I added a 10% height penalty for each level up for class III, II and I JJs. In addition, as heavier mechs carry more weapons to poptart with, I increased the burn time for every increase in JJ class to give players more time to shoot back or hide. Hopefully this will increase the risk for larger mechs to poptart.

For comparison between today and my proposal, here are the differences in jump heights for selected tonnages based on a 6% of tonnage in JJs:

35 tonner: 4jj Current Height: 38.3m New Height: 67.0m
50 tonner: 6jj Current Height: 73.8m New Height: 71.9m
65 tonner: 4jj Current Height: 40.9m New Height: 64.7m
85 tonner: 5jj Current Height: 36.9m New Height: 57.8m
100 tonner: 3jj Current Height: 21.2m New Height: 50.2m

Edited by Nightbird, 23 June 2021 - 11:24 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

Nightbird, on 23 June 2021 - 10:09 AM, said:

Based on my formula, I saw a constant of 0.83 between the theoretical numbers and the in game numbers, probably due to the game engine physics implementation, but these numbers are pretty accurate:

This is close enough to sin(pi/3) that I wonder if we're seeing thrust applied at a 60 degree angle. Testing for x-displacement could nail it down. I have some data that I collected last night that I can run with your equation of motion.

Exciting stuff!

[Nightbird]

Vlad Ward, on 23 June 2021 - 11:39 AM, said:

This is close enough to sin(pi/3) that I wonder if we're seeing thrust applied at a 60 degree angle. Testing for x-displacement could nail it down. I have some data that I collected last night that I can run with your equation of motion.

Cool, I look forward to it.

[Nightbird]

Navid A1, on 21 June 2021 - 09:12 PM, said:

Any thoughts on the formulas, updated current and cauldron tables?

[Xhaleon]

Simple way to avoid a return to the old DS poptart meta especially with all these direct fire weapon buffs lately;
Aim is unstable whenever you are in the air, always, not just when the jump jets are firing. Make it less unstable when freefalling so that its still possible to poptart, but the effectiveness is cut down dramatically to "useful close-range opportunity but not optimal". Technically a soft buff to lock-on weapons I guess.

Now you can give JJs back their full canon or close-to-canon power levels without worry, now there's a system in place that can be spreadsheet-tweaked in the future if its too harsh or too lenient. Of course, this would require them to divert at least one engineer off from whatever they're doing with MW5 DLC. Where are those hired Cryengine merc hands that are supposed to work on this game anyway?

[YueFei]

Xhaleon, on 24 June 2021 - 07:59 AM, said:

Simple way to avoid a return to the old DS poptart meta especially with all these direct fire weapon buffs lately;
Aim is unstable whenever you are in the air, always, not just when the jump jets are firing. Make it less unstable when freefalling so that its still possible to poptart, but the effectiveness is cut down dramatically to "useful close-range opportunity but not optimal". Technically a soft buff to lock-on weapons I guess.

Now you can give JJs back their full canon or close-to-canon power levels without worry, now there's a system in place that can be spreadsheet-tweaked in the future if its too harsh or too lenient. Of course, this would require them to divert at least one engineer off from whatever they're doing with MW5 DLC. Where are those hired Cryengine merc hands that are supposed to work on this game anyway?

I wouldn't do reticule shake in the air at all times. Rather it might be a more nuanced change to have a shake dissipation delay, where after you release the JJs it takes some time to stop shaking. Then it can be tuned for balance as needed, based on weight class, chassis, etc. E.g., Light mechs could have a delay of 0.0, meaning it instantly stabilizes when you release the JJs. Assaults and Heavies with high mounts could have a longer delay, like 0.5s, while other Assaults and Heavies that already suffer from low mounts could have less of a delay, like 0.2s. Tune as needed, so that people receiving fire from enemy Heavy/Assault poptarts have a bit more time to react and defend themselves and/or retaliate.

(The exact values can be experimented with for balance, the above figures were just for example and not what I necessarily advocate for.)