81 replies to this topic

[Zerberus]

hammerreborn, on 17 May 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

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.

A week? I`ll know on Tuesday and be sporting ML in the non flamer slots of my 4p on Wednesday. POP goes the stalker!

[hammerreborn]

Zerberus, on 17 May 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

A week? I`ll know on Tuesday and be sporting ML in the non flamer slots of my 4p on Wednesday. POP goes the stalker!

I think it'll take a week for someone to math it. It's going to take me a second to hop into my 6 flamer Jenner and start melting faces (though I think that any more than 2 is going to be wasted tonnage).

Edited by hammerreborn, 17 May 2013 - 04:11 PM.

[Mizore]

Syllogy, on 16 May 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

• A powered down enemy will not generate heat when hit with flamers, but will still take damage.

This one thing is making the flamers totally useless again because the affected mech can just shut down manually and wait about 10 secs (it's no problem because flamers damage is no threat at all) and then blast away the flamer guy within one or two alphastrikes...


Flamers are high risk weapons, because you have to get very close to the enemy to use them, so when you take this high risk you should get some kind of reward, but the only reward you get is, that the enemy might shut down, if he's stupid enough to fire his big guns.
But if he's not totally stupid, he just walks back to his teammates without hesitation, because it takes some minutes for the flamers, to burn through your armor.
Or if he has a high alpha build... just take some time to aim properly and oneshot the flamer guy in medium or light mechs... very nice -.-*

Edited by Mizore, 18 May 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Sephlock]

Itkovian, on 17 May 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

I expect flamers to get nerfed soon enough, if they are in fact able to shut down players.

Why? Because this makes Flamers an irritating weapon, whose primary effect is to frustrate the target.

In tabletop that's not an issue, because you're actually not in that cockpit and usually have plenty of other things to do. But in MWO, where controlling the mech is what you do, getting shut down by flamers is going to be extremely frustrating, and in time the forum rage will see flamers nerfed.

I was with you right up until this point

Quote

And I'd have to agree with it: any system whose primary purpose is to annoy and frustrate players has no place in modern game design. Same reason why CC is very limited in modern MMOs, and why ECM is so hated.

[Fire and Salt]

i dont like the fact that flamers dont heat up a shut down mech... why should someone be able to shut down and magically cool off to 0%?



i also dont like the idea of a 90% cap as a hard limit... thats just.... odd...



i would prefer something like:

enemys heat/ heat added/damage done
0% / .5 / .1
10% / .45 / .15
20% / .4 / .2
30% / .35 / .25
40% / .3 / .3
50% / .25 / .35
60% / .2 / .4
70% / .15 / .45
80% / .1 / .5
90% / .05 / .55
100% or greater / 0.0 / .6



(this way, you woud actuall be able to get a target up to say... 92% if you had 6 flamers, but if you had 2, you would get them to 88% maybe....)

this makes sense because, as the enemy mechs temperature increases, the rate of temperature increases levels out.

also, the flamer is always useful this way - if its not heating up the target as much because the target is already hot, it does more damage... its easier to burn off the armor when its already hot




I hate the idea of the flamer heating someone up to 90% and then the heat just leveling off suddenly... it would seem more natural if it was more gradual

Edited by Fire and Salt, 18 May 2013 - 06:14 PM.

[Syllogy]

It's not meant to be natural, it's meant to prevent stun-locking.

[General Taskeen]

The Flamer out to just be changed to a burst weapon (burst of flame) that has a 'bonus' of raising the heat to a certain point.

2 Damage
3 Heat Per Shot
5 Heat On Target
Recycle Time 1.5 Seconds

Boom, done. I just balanced the Flamer. Does actual damage, bonus raise target heat.

Edited by General Taskeen, 18 May 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[Fire and Salt]

Syllogy, on 18 May 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

It's not meant to be natural, it's meant to prevent stun-locking.

ok, but thats dumb, since it could be both...

Edited by Fire and Salt, 19 May 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[Zerberus]

75 Dmg, 1 KILL, and 2 assists with a 9 flamer hunchback going for a purely rofl and iontentionally suicidal Firecharge.... When I actually got a kill after grilling his open CT for almost 2 minutes my bro and I broke out in hysterical laughter, and I felt myself compelled to post my first ever Kill gloat in /all...

When the buff this, people may want to stay an extra few meters away from me just in case, regardless of which team youre on

[hammerreborn]

Zerberus, on 19 May 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

75 Dmg, 1 KILL, and 2 assists with a 9 flamer hunchback going for a purely rofl and iontentionally suicidal Firecharge.... When I actually got a kill after grilling his open CT for almost 2 minutes my bro and I broke out in hysterical laughter, and I felt myself compelled to post my first ever Kill gloat in /all...

When the buff this, people may want to stay an extra few meters away from me just in case, regardless of which team youre on

Not a fan of the flamer hunch. The slow speed just doesn't work for me. You need to get in close so I vastly prefer the 6 flamer Jenner or cicada

[FupDup]

Perhaps I'm about to become flamebait by posting this (pun intended?), but something odd I've noticed is that the forumbase shows overwhelming support of stunlocks in the form of collisions/knockdowns but suddenly doesn't like them when Flamers can do it. Is it because Flamers can be utilized by any mech whereas knockdowns restrict stunlocks to who is bigger?

Serious question.

Edited by FupDup, 20 May 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[Vasces Diablo]

FupDup, on 20 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Perhaps I'm about to become flamebait by posting this (pun intended?), but something odd I've noticed is that the forumbase shows overwhelming support of stunlocks in the form of collisions/knockdowns but suddenly doesn't like them when Flamers can do it. Is it because Flamers can be utilized by any mech whereas knockdowns restrict stunlocks to who is bigger?

Serious question.

Your problem there is that you are making the assumption that forum posting behavior is rational.

[FupDup]

Vasces Diablo, on 20 May 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Your problem there is that you are making the assumption that forum posting behavior is rational.

It all makes sense now! This also explains other forum inconsistencies...

[hammerreborn]

FupDup, on 20 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Perhaps I'm about to become flamebait by posting this (pun intended?), but something odd I've noticed is that the forumbase shows overwhelming support of stunlocks in the form of collisions/knockdowns but suddenly doesn't like them when Flamers can do it. Is it because Flamers can be utilized by any mech whereas knockdowns restrict stunlocks to who is bigger?

Serious question.

Easy answer:

Who is affected by flamers the most: Assaults
Who is affected by flamers the least: Lights

Who is affected by knockdowns the most: lights
Who is affected by knockdowns the least: assaults

And it all becomes clear.

[Vasces Diablo]

hammerreborn, on 20 May 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Easy answer:

Who is affected by flamers the most: Assaults
Who is affected by flamers the least: Lights

Who is affected by knockdowns the most: lights
Who is affected by knockdowns the least: assaults

And it all becomes clear.

Good point. So once knock downs are back in, defense vs flamer mech is to run their a** over?

[Zerberus]

Vasces Diablo, on 20 May 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Good point. So once knock downs are back in, defense vs flamer mech is to run their a** over?

FIREBALL BOWLING!!!!

But maybe we need a mechanic specifically to **** of Heavy pilots, too.. that would (if nothing else) increase the frequency with which we see mediums, though admittedly in a somewhat dubious fashion

Edited by Zerberus, 20 May 2013 - 01:23 PM.

[hammerreborn]

Vasces Diablo, on 20 May 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Good point. So once knock downs are back in, defense vs flamer mech is to run their a** over?

No, the defense vs flamer is LOL THIS GUY IS USING FLAMERS ITS LIKE NOT DOING ANY DAMAGE! HEY BILL GET A LOAD OF THIS GUY, IT'S TICKLING ME, MIND SHOOTING IT?

[Frisk]

It should also be noted that flamers can be a great way to obstruct someones vision.

[MustrumRidcully]

We'll see how bad this thing goes. The info so far is too little to really tell.

Niko Snow, on 17 May 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

In the year 4000: With so much love for flamers, Mech strength will be measured in British Thermal Units.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

i dont like the fact that flamers dont heat up a shut down mech... why should someone be able to shut down and magically cool off to 0%?

It's because of the thermic convection flux neutronino compensator that can only work if the fusion reactor is not providing the mech systems with any energy. [/TechnoBabble]

Fire and Salt, on 19 May 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

ok, but thats dumb, since it could be both...

Idle Speculative Ideas:
Not sure what would be possible... But maybe Flamers should simply not be able to make the target heat gain a higher heat then your own? Then at least both mechs overheat together.

I'd ultimately prefer if they just buffed Flamers damage outputs, but kept the heat ability limited. I think the risks of stun locks just not worth the effort.