81 replies to this topic

[Khanublikhan]

hammerreborn, on 17 May 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

The thing about the 90% cap that confuses me is just that it's so...arbitrary >.>



Should make your mech melt. To hell with "stun locking" arguments. You let an entire team get within 64 meters of you, you explode now.

You have to remember a flamer is only a 1 ton weapon. There have to be limits on what a 1 ton weapon can achieve - even in the extreme as shown in your screenshot.

A cap is an attempt to prevent flamer abuse - the reason why flamer's have been passed on by for so long, as this issue has been wrestled with.

90% has been chosen because - it is within touching distance of causing a shutdown, and: the scale from 0-90% is time flamers must be applied for before they become fully effective the largest / most reasonable window of activity for the targeted mech].

Edited by Khanublikhan, 17 May 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[Vasces Diablo]

Syllogy, on 17 May 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Not really. The lowest amount of Heat Threshold you can have is 40. (30 + 10 single heatsinks) Anything with doubles will have a minimum of 50.

Anything that generates less than 5 heat per shot can be fired with impunity. Even firing an AC20 would be a very short power down/up cycle.

Also, remember that you can manually power down to drain heat. A mech equipped with all Flamers can't do very much DPS, and they will also suffer from the heat that they generate.

40-60 threshold means 90% = 36 - 54 or never more than 4-6 points of heat to shut down. Med lasers do 5 points of heat right? Just moving causes a couple points of heat. So once at 90%, I have to try and defend myself with a small laser while barely moving (and mostly blind, as flamers full your field of view). Again, this is essentially a stun lock.

We of course don't know how long it takes to get to 90%, so that's a factor we'll have to work in later.

Edit: if the intent of the flamed change is to punish the high heat alpha boat (we don't know that it is) this would actually be accomplished with a lower max flamer threshold. Boats would be forced to not alpha or shut down, where balanced builds could operate in the higher heat region.

Edited by Vasces Diablo, 17 May 2013 - 09:52 AM.

[hammerreborn]

Khanublikhan, on 17 May 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

You have to remember a flamer is only a 1 ton weapon. There have to be limits on what a 1 ton weapon can achieve - even in the extreme as shown in your screenshot.

A cap is an attempt to prevent flamer abuse - the reason why flamer's have been passed on by for so long, as this issue has been wrestled with.

90% has been chosen because - it is within touching distance of causing a shutdown, and: the scale from 0-90% is time flamers must be applied for before they become fully effective the largest / most reasonable window of activity for the targeted mech].

If every one of those flamers were replaced with medium lasers not only would the heat be relatively the same, they would have cored that atlas nearly instantly, at 270/540 range rather than 64/90.

So....not sure what your point was.

[John MatriX82]

Vasces Diablo, on 17 May 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

40-60 threshold means 90% = 36 - 54 or never more than 4-6 points of heat to shut down. Med lasers do 5 points of heat right? Just moving causes a couple points of heat. So once at 90%, I have to try and defend myself with a small laser while barely moving (and mostly blind, as flamers full your field of view). Again, this is essentially a stun lock.

We of course don't know how long it takes to get to 90%, so that's a factor we'll have to work in later.

Edit: if the intent of the flamed change is to punish the high heat alpha boat (we don't know that it is) this would actually be accomplished with a lower max flamer threshold. Boats would be forced to not alpha or shut down, where balanced builds could operate in the higher heat region.

I agree, 90% treshold capped out it's too way high. The idea and the mechanic itself isn't totally bad, but it's the choice of getting so high with that number. We'll see how long it will take it to climb an enemy mech there though.. but virtually it will become a visual and stun lock weapon.

Edited by John MatriX82, 17 May 2013 - 12:12 PM.

[hammerreborn]

John MatriX82, on 17 May 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

I agree, 90% treshold capped out it's too way high. The idea and the mechanic itself isn't totally bad, but it's the choice of getting so high with that number. We'll see how long it will take it to climb an enemy mech there though.. but virtually it will become a visual and stun lock weapon.

Until the enemy mech either moves away from the flamer mech, or the flamer mech overheats, which should be just shortly after the enemy mech hits 90% anyways...

[Shumabot]

Tennex, on 16 May 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

flamers shouldt just counter energy loadouts.
its going to be a bad mechanic.

PGI is really good at making these bad mechanics.

- if you get flamers, and you go up against someone using ballistic/missile weapons. you are screwed.
- if you get missiles, and you go up against someone who has ECM. you are screwed.


this is very binomial gameplay. its just bad game design.



It needs to simply increase the cooldown of weapons on the targeted mech

It's a nice softcounter to boated energy based loadouts and to the current meta of heavy/assault mechs only. I agree that this game is way too loaded with hardcounters when you consider how random matchmaking is (no chance for meaningful counterplay, just random advantages), but this flamer change doesn't seem to bad to me. It really is going to depend on the weapons damage numbers and heat scaling.

hammerreborn, on 17 May 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Until the enemy mech either moves away from the flamer mech, or the flamer mech overheats, which should be just shortly after the enemy mech hits 90% anyways...

Also, this isn't a game of 1 on 1 duels. That flamer can't cover everyone and has to stay very close to its target to be useful. It's going to be suicide in a lot of situations.

[hammerreborn]

Shumabot, on 17 May 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Also, this isn't a game of 1 on 1 duels. That flamer can't cover everyone and has to stay very close to its target to be useful. It's going to be suicide in a lot of situations.

Sucide? That sounds like a job for

EDIT:
Aw picture no longer work. It was a pic of DCs Suidide Squad


....or you know, me, cause I already bring the burn even though flamers are total suck right now

Edited by hammerreborn, 17 May 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[Zerberus]

Waitasec? People are COMPLAINING about the 90% threshold?

You ARE aware that the entire purpose of a flamer is to overheat you to the point of EXPLOSION, something that cannot happen here?

9 flamers like on my swayback "should" shut you down almost instantly, and I mean SHUT DOWN, not "allow you to walk about for the next half hour w/ heat at 90%.

With all due respect, if anybody has anything to complain about with the threshold, it`s the flamer users. Because the weapon is getting "buffed" to be more viable, while at the exact same time eliminating it`S actual purpose completely by not allowing it to heat the target past 90%.

Imagine a 6ppc stalker alphaing somebody`s head repeatedly and not killing them, because it was "capped" that a ppc cannot do the last 10% of damage to the armor or internals, those have to come from somewhere else. It is esentially exactly the same thin, the weapon is now only "allowed" to do at teh most 90% of it`s job.

I only play flamers as a troll /Joke, but somebody that actually likes that weapon and what it`s "supposed" to be would have every right to be pissed off about the 90% threshold not being 100%. The whole point was to shut down the enemy mech and overheat it till it pops. Now the flamer is factually capable of accomplishing NEITHER....

If the enemy pilot dosnt shoot like a wildebeest after being toasted, nothing significant happens.

Even if they do shut down, nothing significant happens, no ammo kabooms, no extra time waiting to restart.

If they move towards their team, the flamer either breaks off or dies.

Believe it or not, with a 90% threshold the weapon is still massively nerfed away from what it is intended to be, and since even entire lances heating up 1 mech have no effect beyond 90%, it`s really still probably just a joke weapon. IMO, I will see how much of this holds true on tuesday.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 May 2013 - 01:00 PM.

[hammerreborn]

Zerberus, on 17 May 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Waitasec? People are COMPLAINING about the 90% threshold?

You ARE aware that the entire purpose of a flamer is to overheat you to the point of EXPLOSION, something that cannot happen here?

9 flamers like on my swayback "should" shut you down almost instantly, and I mean SHUT DOWN, not "allow you to walk about for the next half hour w/ heat at 90%.

With all due respect, if anybody has anything to complain about with the threshold, it`s the flamer users. Because the weapon is getting "buffed" to be more viable, while at the exact same time eliminating it`S actual purpose completely by not allowing it to heat the target past 90%.

I only play flamers as a troll /Joke, but somebody that actually likes that weapon and what it`s "supposed" to be would have every right to be pissed off about the 90% threshold not being 100%. The whole point was to shut down the enemy mech and overheat it till it pops. Now the flamer is factually capable of accomplishing NEITHER....

If the enemy pilot dosnt shoot like a wildebeest after being toasted, nothing significant happens.

Even if they do shut down, nothing significant happens, no ammo kabooms, no extra time waiting to restart.

If they move towards their team, the flamer either breaks off or dies.

Believe it or not, with a 90% threshold the weapon is still massively nerfed away from what it is intended to be, and since even entire lances heati9n gup 1 mech have no effect beyond 90%, it`s really still probably just a joke weapon. IMO, I will see how much of this holds true on tuesday.

Well they did say crossing a threshold heat internal damage is going to start, who knows what that will be though. So it may be able to make people pop, but by their own stupidity rather than anything the flamers did.

[General Taskeen]

My only hope is that 1 Flamer on a stock config can be useful (the spider or commando). As far as I'm concerned, balance of MG's and Flamers should start at the stock level to adjust their usefulness, and pretty much any weapon in the game considering stock variants are encouraged by their inclusion in the game.

[Shumabot]

General Taskeen, on 17 May 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

My only hope is that 1 Flamer on a stock config can be useful (the spider or commando). As far as I'm concerned, balance of MG's and Flamers should start at the stock level to adjust their usefulness, and pretty much any weapon in the game considering stock variants are encouraged by their inclusion in the game.

They're already balanced by stock builds, it's why we have all the balance problems we have. Stock variants shouldn't be the basis for anything because they're universally trash.

[Zerberus]

hammerreborn, on 17 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Well they did say crossing a threshold heat internal damage is going to start, who knows what that will be though. So it may be able to make people pop, but by their own stupidity rather than anything the flamers did.

Exactly, anybody complaining about how flamers will stun lock them annd blablahyaddayadda needs to understand how the heat scale works and more importantly what a flamer is REALLY supposed to do. Because dying to a flamer when it can`t overheat you past 90% can ONLY be entirely your own fault. Especially at present when running at ANYTHING under 99% incurs zero penalties and even going over 100% is absolutely safe as long as you don`t override.

Bottom line: An intelligent pilot can do more with just the 10% of the heat scale a Flamered mech leaves him with than others could with triple the capacity, and the others would die nearly instantly in more or less any other MW or BT game ever.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 May 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Shumabot, on 17 May 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

They're already balanced by stock builds, it's why we have all the balance problems we have. Stock variants shouldn't be the basis for anything because they're universally trash.

That's where one goes wrong with that train of thought. Consider MW3, for instance, if you have two Mechs vs. each other using stock configs, they are perfectly balanced. Say, for instance you use 2 MG's in that game, they only come with 200 ammo (just like TT), which is enough to do considerable damage and actually destroy a Mech in that game. 1 or 2 Flamers, likewise, are also efficient and useful.

Stock configs are not universally trash when you consider this is a game, and they can be balanced correctly in some context of weapon balance or whatever. If it was trash in TT, then that does not equate to being it should stay trash in a game. A CPLT-K2 built to exact specs of a K3, for instance, is not trash in this game, or a CTX-1X built to exact specs of a CES-3R; A Commando with specs of a COM-5S; an Awesome with specs of AWS-9Q, etc. These are things I have tested regularly in the beta in actual matches.

Certain issues with a weapon or the universally inefficient SHS in the game (unless Gaussing) affect some stock configurations. And SHS/DHS are apparently getting a pass before the game is launched.

Edited by General Taskeen, 17 May 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[hammerreborn]

Zerberus, on 17 May 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

Exactly, anybody complaining about how flamers will stun lock them annd blablahyaddayadda needs to understand how the heat scale works and more importantly what a flamer is REALLY supposed to do. Because dying to a flamer when it can`t overheat you past 90% can ONLY be entirely your own fault. Especially at present when running at ANYTHING under 99% incurs zero penalties and even going over 100% is absolutely safe as long as you don`t override.

Bottom line: An intelligent pilot can do more with just the 10% of the heat scale a Flamered mech leaves him with than others could with triple the capacity, and the others would die nearly instantly in more or less any other MW or BT game ever.

Exactly, the flamer is going to be the first weapon that gets more useless the more you have. I'm sure within a week someone will have figured out the maximum Flamers required to keep a 4 ppc stalker permanently at 90%, and going above that is wasting tonnage.

After all, those mechs already put themselves 3/4 of the way there by firing once, not like you'd need that many to get the rest of the way there. Any more and it's dead weight, put a small laser in there instead (don't want to add to much heat on your end) and add a couple more heat sinks.

[Shumabot]

General Taskeen, on 17 May 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

That's where one goes wrong with that train of thought. Consider MW3, for instance, if you have two Mechs vs. each other using stock configs, they are perfectly balanced.

Not even close to true.

Quote

Say, for instance you use 2 MG's in that game, they only come with 200 ammo (just like TT), which is enough to do considerable damage and actually destroy a Mech in that game. 1 or 2 Flamers, likewise, are also efficient and useful.

Also not actually representative of the reality of multiplayer MW3 where precision alpha damage and poptarting was a problem (really, it's always been a problem in every MW game with competition).

Quote

Stock configs are not universally trash when you consider this is a game, and they can be balanced correctly in some context of weapon balance or whatever.

That is nonsense, no stock mech is viable in an environment where people aren't forced to use stock mechs. They aren't even well balanced against eachother, the stock dragons lose to most of the games stock mediums.

Quote

If it was trash in TT, then that does not equate to being it should stay trash in a game. A CPLT-K2 built to exact specs of a K3, for instance, is not trash in this game, or a CTX-1X built to exact specs of a CES-3R; A Commando with specs of a COM-5S; an Awesome with specs of AWS-9Q, etc. These are things I have tested regularly in the beta in actual matches.

Except those mechs actually are trash in this game. The stock jagermechs are so unarmored that a deaths knell has a good chance of coring one out in a few volleys. The stock catapaults can't handle their own heat, don't have enough ammo, move incredibly slowly, and have little armor.

Quote

Certain issues with a weapon or the universally inefficient SHS in the game (unless Gaussing) affect some stock configurations. And SHS/DHS are apparently getting a pass before the game is launched.

Every stock configuration is effected by too little ammo, too little armor, too low speed, a lack of upgrades, nonsensical weapon configurations, and no actual role. They're all bad.

[Deathlike]

Shumabot, on 17 May 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Also not actually representative of the reality of multiplayer MW3 where precision alpha damage and poptarting was a problem (really, it's always been a problem in every MW game with competition).

Alpha damage wasn't that much of a problem... poptarting certainly wasn't (the maps generally were flat). It was all literally fighting through the "built in lag shield" aka poor netcode that you had to mostly contend with.

Quote

Every stock configuration is effected by too little ammo, too little armor, too low speed, a lack of upgrades, nonsensical weapon configurations, and no actual role. They're all bad.

There are a few trial mechs that come to mind that are OK last I recall... the stock K2 and the stock 4P and 4SP seem OK. Even the trial Cent-D is OK too.. but yes, the majority are godawful and you would wish stock builds were not made of paper.

[hammerreborn]

Deathlike, on 17 May 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Alpha damage wasn't that much of a problem... poptarting certainly wasn't (the maps generally were flat). It was all literally fighting through the "built in lag shield" aka poor netcode that you had to mostly contend with.




There are a few trial mechs that come to mind that are OK last I recall... the stock K2 and the stock 4P and 4SP seem OK. Even the trial Cent-D is OK too.. but yes, the majority are godawful and you would wish stock builds were not made of paper.

The cent-d is a sexy beast. I slaughtered in that mech when I was doing a trial mech challenge for one of my data results (pre ELO matchmaking).

[Butane9000]

Maliconus, on 16 May 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

I am fine with this and I run hot all the time.... A 6 PPC Stalker at 90% heat can and will still Alpha you in the Face.

Hammertrial, on 16 May 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

And not experience any detrimental effects!

Note in his post he also mentioned they are looking at including detrimental effects for excessively going over the heat threshold.

[Deathlike]

hammerreborn, on 17 May 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

The cent-d is a sexy beast. I slaughtered in that mech when I was doing a trial mech challenge for one of my data results (pre ELO matchmaking).

The only thing that has changed for LBX since then til now is the additional crits behavior. I hope the upcoming changes make LBX much better.

[hammerreborn]

Butane9000, on 17 May 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Note in his post he also mentioned they are looking at including detrimental effects for excessively going over the heat threshold.

I didn't see mention of that prior to making that post.