Is There Anything We Can Do Better To Address High Alpha?
#1
Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:09 PM
I feel the pin-point High alpha needs to be addressed yet again. It's like an AWP only game style... but you can still run and gun with the same effect.
please PGI, look into rewarding multiple weapon systems. The damage to internals is moot in a game where 2 alphas will end you anyways, what were you trying to say implementing that?
#2
Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:10 PM
#3
Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:11 PM
Then high damage alpha builds might go away.
#4
Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:21 PM
Ryvucz, on 02 July 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:
Then high damage alpha builds might go away.
No, they wouldn't.
High damage alpha builds are the most effective way to kill mechs.
Thus, they are going to dominate the game forever, until this stops being the case.
In reality, they've dominated the game throughout the history of mechwarrior, including the entirety of MWO's existence.. it was simply the case that the steering wheel underhive was unaware of this simple truth until it trickled all the way down into the basement and they got to see it first hand.
#5
Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:25 PM
#6
Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:32 PM
Hypothetically, if ridicule shake took effect on movement, a high alpha build Jagar would need to throttle down to about 40% to get a good shot on a faster moving mech, meaning hes now open to incoming LRM's, hell, even full burn medium lasers!
I believe the issue is the ability to strike reliably at any speed that is making the AWP matches in CS. when was the AWP at it's strongest/weakest?? it was when he was standing completely still to get that pin point shot.... I believe we can keep the current mech bay customization, if they introduced a working and reasonable movement to fire penalty.
#7
Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:51 PM
Edited by Steel Claws, 02 July 2013 - 08:14 PM.
#8
Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:19 PM
We know that jumping makes weapons fire erratically. Any movement causing a similar spread would balance all weapons, and low-skill pilots.
The reason why alpha-strikes are superior is because of simplicity; having stock builds are not as efficient by having multiple weapons groups+ranges. Mixed weapons here (ie, balanced load-outs) are less effective because of NOT using all weapons (and effective tonnage) for chosen ranges. Between having weapons capable of varied ranges or having major minimum range, which should people take? Then, why should anyone vary weaponry?
This is why people 'boat' weapons; this is why people Alpha. But it's far from the most effective.
The way to balance combat now, is to implement random hits for all shots (modified by attacker movement.)
The current aiming mechanism should be reserved for Targetting Computers and their precision (hit where you want).
#10
Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:38 PM
http://mwomercs.com/...48-convergence/ it has links to some other major threads on it too.
The second most common is probably Heat penalties, and or reduction of heat threshold. This would affect, though not remove it especially for ballistic weapons. There are also many threads on this. And this is likely a good idea even though it only has a minor affect on alpha striking, as it will make it easier to balance the ammo free energy weapons against the heavier ammo driven ballistic and missile weapons.
The third really common method is limiting hardpoints to certain sizes of weapons so you could maybe take out a LL and replace it with a PPC, but not take out a ML and replace it with a PPC.
EDIT: True Zyrusticae forgot that.
make weapons do there damage in smaller units either by turning PPCs into something more like lasers with a beam duration. Or giving them spread damage to multiple parts. For ballistics changing the RoF or making them fire a bullet stream instead of a single projectile with each round doing lower damage. (note that the present AC/2 according to TT rules is a TT AC/20 once you account for the doubled armor values (it does 20 damage over 10 seconds if you adjust damage for armor values).
You will find dozens of threads on each of these methods if you browse through the first 5 or so pages on this forum.
Edited by Ningyo, 02 July 2013 - 09:00 PM.
#11
Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:43 PM
(I personally don't think Gauss rifles are a problem and can stay the way they are, but others may disagree.)
Edited by Zyrusticae, 02 July 2013 - 08:44 PM.
#12
Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:49 PM
Allowing mechs to only equip "X" amount of any one weapon.
For example:
SL/MG :8
ML/MPL 4-6
LL/LPS 3-4
PPC/AC 2
No more one shotting a fully armored mech from across the map with your 6 ER ppc/6 ERLL and be so far away you cant be targeted then have the time to cool down befor doing it again.
Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 02 July 2013 - 08:51 PM.
#13
Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:53 PM
Hythos, on 02 July 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:
We know that jumping makes weapons fire erratically. Any movement causing a similar spread would balance all weapons, and low-skill pilots.
The reason why alpha-strikes are superior is because of simplicity; having stock builds are not as efficient by having multiple weapons groups+ranges. Mixed weapons here (ie, balanced load-outs) are less effective because of NOT using all weapons (and effective tonnage) for chosen ranges. Between having weapons capable of varied ranges or having major minimum range, which should people take? Then, why should anyone vary weaponry?
This is why people 'boat' weapons; this is why people Alpha. But it's far from the most effective.
The way to balance combat now, is to implement random hits for all shots (modified by attacker movement.)
The current aiming mechanism should be reserved for Targetting Computers and their precision (hit where you want).
If you want people to quit in droves, this would be a good way to do it. I already hear people raged about no registered damage on shots that should hit, make hits random and you loose half the player base that's left. This is NOT table top, You have to make it fun and reward skill. This game is already dumbed down beyond belief and that is what is absolutely killing the player base.
#14
Posted 02 July 2013 - 09:14 PM
Steel Claws, on 02 July 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:
You are looking at this kinda backwards but you are onto something.
It's not PPCs or Large Lasers it's the ability to replace a small laser with a PPC and a MG with an AC20.
The issue isn't how much space a PPC takes it's how much space a hard point can hold.Currently a hardpoint space is equal to all available space in the location the hardpoint is mounted in.
If instead a hard point had a cap on the critical spaces it can accommodate then the hardpoints themselves could be used as a means of preventing high alpha builds.
If a Stalker that has six energy hardpoints only had 2 that could fit a PPC then would we have high alpha stalkers?
If for example a Stalker had these limits.
Head: no hardpoint.
CT: no hardpoint
RT/LT: 1 energy hardpoint with 2 max crits allowed
1 energy hardpoint with 1 max crits allowed
1 missile hardpoint with 3 max crits allowed
RA/LA:1 energy hardpoint with 3 max crits allowed
1 missile hardpoint with 6 max crits allowed
RL/LL: no hardpoints
How much pinpoint alpha damage could this mech put out? 2 PPCs not to bad,or maybe 4x large lasers or 6x mediums but no pinpoint damage since lasers are not all front loaded damage. 4x srm 6 ? no pinpoint damage there same for LRM boating.
Even with these limitations this hypothetical stalker could be configured into many different weapon platforms allowing for diversity in design and preserving customization (all be it with some limits to prevent exploiting game design choices)
This is far less intensive an alteration than reworking convergence or heat/heat related damage.(although honestly I think a combination of convergence and hardpoint limits are the best fix)
#15
Posted 02 July 2013 - 09:22 PM
#16
Posted 02 July 2013 - 09:31 PM
Edited by KharnZor, 02 July 2013 - 09:32 PM.
#17
Posted 02 July 2013 - 10:00 PM
That way stock builds wouldn't have to be affected much (probably could do it so none are at all), every mech could still run every weapon (assuming it has the hardpoints), hardpoints wouldn't need to be lowered. So for example you could still have stalkers with 6 energy harpoints but lets say it can only use 10 crits for those weapons. They could carry 6ml if they want or 5LL, or 3ppc and 1ml but they wouldn't be able to carry 6LL or 4ppc, Or add in the power draw system (or call it whatever) and tweak those numbers to get different limits.
Could help balance some mechs out too, for example maybe do something like let the awesome have more energy potential than the stalker. Something ike a 300 engine gives 300 power and the awesome has a 1.2 multiplier and the stalker just 1x. I think something like that could help the balance and give some more variety because if done right you would have to make more sacrifices and everybody might not pick the same ones.
Edited by dario03, 02 July 2013 - 10:05 PM.
#18
Posted 02 July 2013 - 10:15 PM
#19
Posted 02 July 2013 - 10:17 PM
dario03, on 02 July 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:
That way stock builds wouldn't have to be affected much (probably could do it so none are at all), every mech could still run every weapon (assuming it has the hardpoints), hardpoints wouldn't need to be lowered. So for example you could still have stalkers with 6 energy harpoints but lets say it can only use 10 crits for those weapons. They could carry 6ml if they want or 5LL, or 3ppc and 1ml but they wouldn't be able to carry 6LL or 4ppc, Or add in the power draw system (or call it whatever) and tweak those numbers to get different limits.
Could help balance some mechs out too, for example maybe do something like let the awesome have more energy potential than the stalker. Something ike a 300 engine gives 300 power and the awesome has a 1.2 multiplier and the stalker just 1x. I think something like that could help the balance and give some more variety because if done right you would have to make more sacrifices and everybody might not pick the same ones.
The problem with any hardpoint relation suggestions is that there are now stock mechs that boat weapons (but not necessariyl PPCs), and there are a lot of interesting candidates for future mechs that do boat weapons.
Canon has it all. LRM boats. PPC boats. Gauss Rifle Boats. AC/20 Boats. Ultra AC/20 boats. Not all of them are equally... "practical", but there are enough for it that avoiding them will probably disappoint a lot of franchise fans, and adding them just gets the min/maxers to take these mechs and we're all back into alpha-boat land again.
The combination of convergence and group fire needs to be limited if you want to deal with this problem. Be it cone of fire, no convergence, deliberately imperfect convergence, disallowing group-firing all together, creating some targeting computer processing power subsystem, whatever.
#20
Posted 02 July 2013 - 10:25 PM
MustrumRidcully, on 02 July 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:
Canon has it all. LRM boats. PPC boats. Gauss Rifle Boats. AC/20 Boats. Ultra AC/20 boats. Not all of them are equally... "practical", but there are enough for it that avoiding them will probably disappoint a lot of franchise fans, and adding them just gets the min/maxers to take these mechs and we're all back into alpha-boat land again.
The combination of convergence and group fire needs to be limited if you want to deal with this problem. Be it cone of fire, no convergence, deliberately imperfect convergence, disallowing group-firing all together, creating some targeting computer processing power subsystem, whatever.
Yeah and I figured on that but I don't know the stock mechs well enough to know how much they boated. But was there any mechs in this time frame that had 6ppc on them? And would we have to have those exact variants? But basically I was thinking this could be something that could be used as just part of balance. Like in the example I used of the Stalker and Awesome, it could be set up so that the Awesome could run 3 or 4 ppc and the stalker could be limited to 2 or 3 but it has the advantage of not having a giant CT.
14 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 14 guests, 0 anonymous users