128 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 February 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

Isn't it though? Sounds to me like anything that does more damage than what they deem to be the maximum alpha (Russ said 30 damage as an example) will incur a heat penalty.

That's not even remotely what he said though.

He used to EXAMPLES of damage 30 and 50 just to help illustrate the idea behind it and specifically stated they were nothing more than numbers as an example. I don't know how much clearer he could make that. I'm pretty sure he stated that specifically to avoid statements like this.

It's not "more damage" than they deem, it's limiting alphas. There's a big difference in philosophies and mentalities there. It's not fair to try and make definitive statements on Russ' example, especially when he specifically stated it was just that for illustrative purposes.

This is why you get devs who don't want to say anything and being so tight lipped. They try to give the community a little info to let them know they're working on a new system such as this and some around here try to take the example and fictitious numbers given in that example as some sort of definitive answer.

L3mming2, on 29 February 2016 - 09:47 AM, said:

and thats why its a bad system... your builds are the ones that are ruthlessly effective at killing mechs that just poke over the hill for a sec. (even more so if focus fired) not the 4 srm6 AC20 brawlers...

you don't even know what the system is, how the hell can you say it's a bad system?!?!?!?

[L3mming2]

Sandpit, on 29 February 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

That's not even remotely what he said though.

He used to EXAMPLES of damage 30 and 50 just to help illustrate the idea behind it and specifically stated they were nothing more than numbers as an example. I don't know how much clearer he could make that. I'm pretty sure he stated that specifically to avoid statements like this.

It's not "more damage" than they deem, it's limiting alphas. There's a big difference in philosophies and mentalities there. It's not fair to try and make definitive statements on Russ' example, especially when he specifically stated it was just that for illustrative purposes.

This is why you get devs who don't want to say anything and being so tight lipped. They try to give the community a little info to let them know they're working on a new system such as this and some around here try to take the example and fictitious numbers given in that example as some sort of definitive answer.


you don't even know what the system is, how the hell can you say it's a bad system?!?!?!?

cos a system that is purly based on how big the alpha is.... come on just look at srms and you know that the very idea is flawed ...

[oldradagast]

L3mming2, on 29 February 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

cos a system that is purly based on how big the alpha is.... come on just look at srms and you know that the very idea is flawed ...

Exactly. Any system that punishes people based on "big, scary Alpha numbers" will have no real effect on the actual problem builds, which are typically a mix of Gauss + large lasers or dual Gauss but WILL trash builds dependent upon missiles, the AC20, and other brawler setups... also, LRM mechs, as if they need another kick in the shorts.

I wish I had faith enough in PGI that they won't bugger this up, but as long as they keep speaking as if the alpha value is the problem, I have to assume that they really don't understand the problem. A dual Gauss mech is competitive and only has a 30 point alpha (assuming no backup weapons), while a big brawler with an AC20 + a pile of SRM 6's is less competitive... and yet would be hurt more if we're just going to limit alpha values.

[Mead]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 February 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

Except it now facilitates a different role, a slightly better version of the penta-Mauler. Also, what mech runs 75 point alphas currently that can actually sustain more than 2 consecutive alphas? I think there is a lot of misconceptions being thrown around here, like mechs that are able to repeat lolpha after lolpha, which isn't really true since the biggest alphas aren't really able to repeat consistently (Whale, BK, super laser Timmy/Ebjag). Hell, if lolphas were a serious problem, the 3 LPL Quickdraw shouldn't have ever had a place in the meta, but it is still one of the strongest heavies.

On a completely random and unrelated note, I would totally buy a "TIMMAH!" warhorn.

[cazidin]

oldradagast, on 29 February 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

Exactly. Any system that punishes people based on "big, scary Alpha numbers" will have no real effect on the actual problem builds, which are typically a mix of Gauss + large lasers or dual Gauss but WILL trash builds dependent upon missiles, the AC20, and other brawler setups... also, LRM mechs, as if they need another kick in the shorts.

I wish I had faith enough in PGI that they won't bugger this up, but as long as they keep speaking as if the alpha value is the problem, I have to assume that they really don't understand the problem. A dual Gauss mech is competitive and only has a 30 point alpha (assuming no backup weapons), while a big brawler with an AC20 + a pile of SRM 6's is less competitive... and yet would be hurt more if we're just going to limit alpha values.

You're absolutely right. The problem is that you can boat dual Gauss. Limit the charge to 1 Gauss and you have perfect balance, right?

[Sandpit]

L3mming2, on 29 February 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

cos a system that is purly based on how big the alpha is.... come on just look at srms and you know that the very idea is flawed ...

and nowhere did anyone, especially Russ say that's what the system is.

This is what I mean by jumping to conclusions. We're all theorycrafting but for anyone to make any kind of definitive statement regarding how good or bad this system is silly at best because we have NO idea what the new system is.

[TexAce]

L3mming2, on 28 February 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

so it wont punish a AC40 boom jager but dont fire your 4SRM6 becouse you dirty alpha warior!
sr for dicish reply but i fear this system will create more problems then it solves..

SRM's for example would be srewed...

who says its not gonna punish AC40? Its damage bound, not alpha bound.

[oldradagast]

cazidin, on 29 February 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

You're absolutely right. The problem is that you can boat dual Gauss. Limit the charge to 1 Gauss and you have perfect balance, right?

Not exactly - keep in mind I'm using gauss as an example of the problem, though it is not the whole problem by a long margin. Long-range, pinpoint damage is the issue, not total alpha values.

As for folks getting upset about this before the details are revealed, this concern comes from past experiences - experiences that include everything from ghost heat to "ghost range" to the year long period where missiles all did half damage because PGI couldn't figure out how to fix the bugged splash damage code... for a year. Color me unimpressed and don't be surprised by my low expectations for "fixing the high alpha damage problem," which isn't even really the problem in the first place.

If they can't get that right - identifying the problem - how can they possibly get the solution right?

Edited by oldradagast, 29 February 2016 - 05:35 PM.

[Sandpit]

TexAce, on 29 February 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

who says its not gonna punish AC40? Its damage bound, not alpha bound.

we don't know either way yet.