Jump to content

Alpha-Nerf Idea Is -Awful!-


91 replies to this topic

Poll: Is Paul's prorposed Alpha Nerf the wrong way to fix this? (75 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you agree with the OP's Suggestion?

  1. Yes (44 votes [58.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.67%

  2. No (27 votes [36.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.00%

  3. Other (Explain) (4 votes [5.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.33%

Vote

#1 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:06 PM

Before voting blindly I would encourage you read this. If you dislike alphas, at least keep an open mind and see why this is bad - and not for the reasons you might think.

http://mwomercs.com/...32#entry2436932

Quote

Heat Penalty

Last update, I let it be known that we would be investigating a heat penalty for high alpha builds. It is understood that this raised the eyebrows of the many but at the same time a lot of assumptions were made which should hopefully be cleared up here.

We considered the notion of doing a max heat threshold reduction but this would have ended up nerfing every weapon system and every Mech in the game. This is why the heat scale penalty path was chosen since it lets us address every weapon individually and also allows us to take into consideration all Mech builds.

How it works:
  • We set a threshold of the number of weapons fired simultaneously. By simultaneously fired, we mean weapons of the exact same type being fired in under a 0.5 second time range. This 0.5 second time comes from the amount of time between weapon switches when Chain Fire is engaged. Chain Fire is a mechanism meant to help MechWarriors manage their heat and we do not want to punish those who use this mechanic.
  • If a player fires a number of weapons beyond the threshold, the heat scale will increase significantly for every weapon fired beyond the threshold.






So, let me count the horrible, horrible ways that this is the single worst idea for a reactive low-ELO nerf in the entire game. I know a lot of you are already likely jumping to say what a glorious day this is, but if you are, you don't understand why "High alpha builds" were a problem in the first place.

- First and foremost: This punishes small 'mechs. If you bought a BJ-1X get ready to throw it in the trash, because the limit on numbers of guns will absolutely wreck it. This and other 'mechs were designed to boat large arrays of lasers, so forcing them to stagger that fire out will absolutely, positively kick light and medium pilots in the balls again.

- Most high alpha builds don't carry many guns anyway! Everyone rambles about the 6 PPC Stalker, which is clearly far worse than the 4 PPC Stalker. This will punish the bad build and not punish the good one; likewise the most common setup is 2 PPC, 1 Gauss, which this will not even impact. That's because small numbers of big guns are better at heavy damage, high focus hits than large numbers of small guns a lot of the time!

- This won't stop synergy. I've said it before, and I will say it again: If you cap how many of X weapon I can effectively run, I will simply run Y and Z that have similar firing characteristics. Stop me from running 3 PPCs and I'll run 2 PPCs and a Gauss; maybe 2 PPCs and 2 Gauss, 'mech depending. Stop me from running 5 Large Lasers and I'll run 4 and an ER Large. No matter how much you smash this, it will never stop it.

- Goodbye, Secondary Guns. Does your 'mech have backup weapons? Lasers or streaks in case they close the distance? Well if you pop those 3-4 backup guns, you're going to take a huge heat penalty now, despite the fact they likely carry less than a tenth of your firepower. I know I'm not going to want to eat surges of heat for firing a bank of small lasers.

- That's the whole point to some variants! In addition to the light variants that are damaged, but what about 'mechs like the Catapult A1? You've effectively rendered the 'mech worthless. What about a less popular example, the Awesome 8Q? No more PPC builds for that! Good thing nobody is using that laserboat Hunchback, too, because that's going to be a joke now.

- This won't stop the true problem. The reason "high alpha builds" have become such a subject of ire (among the non-frankenmech crowd even) has absolutely nothing to do with the number of guns being boated. It is almost exclusively because of a lack of weight restrictions in the game (Which was one of the longest running pre-beta threads on the MW:O forums, mind you, so I can't say some of us didn't see it coming) resulting in every single person driving a Stalker or Highlander.

- Twin Gauss is Coming. Sure the Jagger and K2 can do so, but they're fragile. The 4X can do it but it's slow. Around the corner is the Victor, that can likely sport 2x Gauss and PPCs. By attacking builds running more than one PPC, all you will do is force everyone here next. Again, alpha strikes are not the underlying problem!

The problem: Guess what, no matter what you do to alpha strikes or weapon arrays this won't make the problem go away. As long as 85-90 ton 'mechs are allowed to be the majority on the field, they will ALL hit so hard you will be unable to pilot anything else!

-

Please PGI, do not go this route. I know you login to the forums and see a million angry threads about alpha strikes and want to give your casual players what they want, but the problem is they honestly do not know what they want, if they're blaming that. They're blaming the very most superficial thing, firing multiples of the same gun, and not thinking through any of the other ramifications.

Do not throw lights and mediums under the bus here, in particular 'mechs designed for that very purpose.

-

So what do we really need?

Weight Restrictions. If everyone isn't driving a heavy or assault and mediums are pushed into the mix, 99% of this will go away overnight. I've heard lobbies might be apart of UI2.0 and my God I hope they are. Sacrificing over half your game content on the altar of a quick match button is not working out. I don't mind if there's a no restriction lobby, though!

More heat effects. I've always been a big fan of organically adding heat effects. If heat slowed your 'mech down more at higher levels, it would make a big difference and people may manage their high-heat builds accordingly. This alpha-nerf system on the other hand will not.

Most of all, a wider look at this and other issues. When the forums light up angry about a specific element, I think it's proven disastrous time and time again to just react directly to it (with a few exceptions, such as the consumable roll out plan) rather than facing the underlying causes. Everyone complains high alpha builds pretty much because some TT-Frakenmech players have screamed it loud enough that newbies who are tired of being cored by Assault 'Mechs that are running a few really big guns have chimed in.

As I've pointed out before, however, most of the good alpha builds aren't even running very many guns. At all. 3-4 tops - the NUMBER of guns has absolutely nothing to do with the problem. It's because, in general a small number of really big guns is better than a larger number of smaller guns if you have the weight to run it.

In Conclusion

Effectively this reactive concept is flawed from it's very conception. It's punishing the wrong 'mechs and doing nothing about the issues that are actually frustrating people.

I'd like to ask you this: What is this going to solve? Will it solve the upcoming Victor running 2x Gauss and 2x PPC? Probably not. Will it solve Highlanders running a Gauss and 2 PPCs? Almost certainly not. What about 1 Gauss and 3 PPCs? That still works...

... is this really to solve one 4+ PPC Stalker that's not very good anyway? Is it specifically designed to be anti-4 PPC, when that's not more effective than the other builds listed above?

Will this solve the fact that if everyone's in an assault, they'll all have massive damage output no matter what we do until they are made the minority?

If the answer is no, what is this going to solve?

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 01:42 PM.


#2 PEEFsmash

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,280 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:12 PM

My biggest complaint is that they are nerfing laser users when lasers are already a relatively poor weapon it comes to risk/reward. They are also the highest skill-requirement weapons in the game. No medium-laser boat is overpowered. There is no need to impart heat penalties on laser users.
My more detailed post on lasers: (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2442292)

I do think that this heat penalty thing can work...the problem will be excecuting it in the right way on the right weapons. Most weapons should carry no extra heat penalty. In fact, PPCs are the only weapons that need it. Lasers of any sort do not need nerfs whatsoever. In fact, they need to have their heat lowered by 15-20% across the board.

I do not agree with the OP that this idea in general should be a call-to-arms. His complains can be fixed, so far as I can tell, by limiting these heat penalties to only certain weapons. However, I will join him in full-fledged pitchfork mode if laser users are nerfed, or lights/mediums are nerfed (again) in this whole mess. Why do I throw in that bit about lights/meds? The developers have never ceased to amaze me with how much they can "accidentally" nerf lights/meds without providing any corresponding buffs.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 11 June 2013 - 12:16 PM.


#3 SMDMadCow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,055 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:18 PM

Agreed.
All they need to do is crank PPC heat per shot back up to 10 for standards and 15 for ERs.

#4 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:20 PM

its very unintuitive and clunky convoluted mess. (much like the ECM/BAP system now)

i think they should rethink it

Edited by Tennex, 11 June 2013 - 12:20 PM.


#5 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:24 PM

View PostSMDMadCow, on 11 June 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Agreed.
All they need to do is crank PPC heat per shot back up to 10 for standards and 15 for ERs.


I'd honestly argue that this would be excessive, but regardless the saddest thing is PPCs won't even be hit that hard by this comparatively.

#6 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:25 PM

Its a band-aid on the symptom of the problem, not the solution.

The issues are around the Heat Threshold, Dissipation rates and Penalties - but this really doesn't solve any of it.

Overheating sooner doesn't stop them from doing it, and instead this is punishing builds that are relatively balanced for the design in an attempt to stop something else entirely.

#7 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:26 PM

View PostTennex, on 11 June 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

its very unintuitive and clunky convoluted mess. (much like the ECM/BAP system now)

i think they should rethink it


It is vastly overly complicated.

I really don't want them to make "exception" weapons either. If they try to fix this by saying "Oh, lasers are the exception" noone will know what is going on with the heat scale at the design phase.

This is just a bad idea that fixes absolutely nothing (including for people who don't like alphas) and causes tons of new problems. It's really among the top 5 worst ideas I've seen announced.

#8 armyof1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,770 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:27 PM

I'm not against the idea if it's done well, meaning smaller damage weapons will have a significantly smaller heat penalty and allow more for example MLs being fired than PPCs simultaneously without heat penalty. The devs haven't explained in enough detail yet how they want to do it so right now I can't really say whether I approve or not.

#9 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:29 PM

View PostUnbound Inferno, on 11 June 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Its a band-aid on the symptom of the problem, not the solution.

The issues are around the Heat Threshold, Dissipation rates and Penalties - but this really doesn't solve any of it.

Overheating sooner doesn't stop them from doing it, and instead this is punishing builds that are relatively balanced for the design in an attempt to stop something else entirely.


Yep. A band-aid on a bullet wound, it's not going to solve a whole lot and will probably just make it worse.

This is why I, time and time again, have defended alpha strikes. They aren't really people's problem (again, excluding the TT Frankenmech crowd, but that's a whole other discussion), and on anything that's under 60 tons you never heard a complaint.

What's worse about the weight matching is effectively your only options are to ton up and play the same game or die over and over and post misguided hate mail about alpha strikes.

View Postarmyof1, on 11 June 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

I'm not against the idea if it's done well, meaning smaller damage weapons will have a significantly smaller heat penalty and allow more for example MLs being fired than PPCs simultaneously without heat penalty. The devs haven't explained in enough detail yet how they want to do it so right now I can't really say whether I approve or not.


I have a huge issue with that, though, from a simple design perspective. In particular if the numbers aren't blatant. If they start doing that I won't have any idea how hot my build is / should be depending on which gun I'm using and that just sucks.

#10 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:29 PM

Single baddest idea I have ever heard in any game. wow. powerfull stupid.

0.5 sec....

#11 armyof1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,770 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:34 PM

View PostVictor Morson, on 11 June 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:



I have a huge issue with that, though, from a simple design perspective. In particular if the numbers aren't blatant. If they start doing that I won't have any idea how hot my build is / should be depending on which gun I'm using and that just sucks.


As long as there is a clear description of how many of each type of weapon can be fired without heat penalty and how this penalty will work as you stack additional weapons to fire at the same time, I don't see any major problems. Besides I like the added incentive to use different weapons which will require you to be better at handling more weapon groups to conserve heat. While if you boat and alpha a lot you will overheat faster, the price of playing an easy build.

Edited by armyof1, 11 June 2013 - 12:36 PM.


#12 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:36 PM

View PostVictor Morson, on 11 June 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:


It is vastly overly complicated.

I really don't want them to make "exception" weapons either. If they try to fix this by saying "Oh, lasers are the exception" noone will know what is going on with the heat scale at the design phase.

This is just a bad idea that fixes absolutely nothing (including for people who don't like alphas) and causes tons of new problems. It's really among the top 5 worst ideas I've seen announced.


for their system to work, they would have to give boating penalties based on weapon. and then on top of that alter boating penalties based on mech (because some stock mechs are supposed to be boats)

which comes out to be horribly clunky

View PostWolvesX, on 11 June 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Single baddest idea I have ever heard in any game. wow. powerfull stupid.

0.5 sec....


FFS why 0.5 secs? because chain fire is set at 0.5 secs? that is the dumbest reason i have evre heard. chainfire jump time was completly arbitrary in the frist place.

Edited by Tennex, 11 June 2013 - 12:35 PM.


#13 Darvaza

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 160 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:36 PM

Clan mechs will start off nerfed... the Nova has 12 ER Medium lasers in primary... the Warhawk has 4 ER PPC's in primary.. that is just two off the top of my head.

Innerspher mechs are not omni mechs. that is the problem. It was a big deal to change around and customize mechs. Here, it is normal.

In TT, hits were spread out and just because one hit did not mean everything hit in the same spot. Armor has already been doubled and I think increasing armor again is a solution for the increased rate of fire and precision targeting.

Adjust the heat up for the high heat weapons and adjust heatsinks to be true doubles.

#14 Jetfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,746 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:37 PM

Honestly I think this could work very well, but they will need to give us a lot more detail. Also, it seems to apply only to multiples of EXACT same items. Making it more viable to make mixed alpha builds which honestly makes sense.

#15 soarra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,312 posts
  • Locationny

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:37 PM

wont solve anything and will hurt the mechs that do not need nerfed

#16 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:39 PM

View Postarmyof1, on 11 June 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:


As long as there is a clear description of how many of each type of weapon can be fired without heat penalty and how this penalty will work as you stack additional weapons to fire at the same time, I don't see any major problems. Besides I like the added incentive to use different weapons which will require you to be better at handling more weapon groups to conserve heat. While if you boat and alpha a lot you will overheat faster, the price of playing an easy build.


I'm sure the info will be parsed into smurfy's mechlab.

#17 Lord Ikka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,255 posts
  • LocationGreeley, CO

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:40 PM

There are a couple of reasons I agree with PGIs new take on this.

1- It is addressing excessive overheating Mechs, whether they are boating or not, with the 150% heat internal damage. Not the best, I think starting at 130% might be better, but at least it is a start.

2- They are specifically not rendering TT standard builds useless, as the 4P shows, because they are using the TT builds as a starting point. Very few TT builds have close to seven med lasers! So they use that as a cutoff. Same with PPCs, the three PPC TT standard Awesomes won't get punished for their build, but more than that will.

I agree with the OP that six PPCs aren't the most worrisome Mechs right now, but PGI is finally addressing the issue, and it looks like they are trying to do it in a way that isn't punishing everyone. Players will always find a way to cheese up the game; nothing will stop gamers from trying To get the best mix of weapons. But when the meta of the game is encouraging players to do nothing but alpha and overheat, something has to be done. PGI has finally decided to do something. Maybe not the best, but I will see how this change plays out before complaining right away.

Edited by Lord Ikka, 11 June 2013 - 01:15 PM.


#18 armyof1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,770 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:40 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 11 June 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:


I'm sure the info will be parsed into smurfy's mechlab.


Good ole smurfy, never build a mech without it!

#19 Petroshka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:41 PM

Tonnage limits, i believe, is a separate issue. But you are right, yes, we need tonnage limits.

Thinking back, what sucked about "weapon boating"

The ability to deal 40-60+ damage to a pinpoint location within 1 second at a range of 0-2000 meters.

Not hunchbacks boating ML, nor stalkers boating LL, and not cats boating SRMS, Jagers running dual 20s or dual gauss, and absolutely not a jenner with ML array.

#20 Krzysztof z Bagien

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 710 posts
  • LocationUć, Poland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:43 PM

+1





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users