73 replies to this topic

[Waking One]

Jasen, on 13 June 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

They are pretty usless... just like LBX, just like MG, just like small lasers, just like AC2s, etc..

lets not forget all pulses and srms (currently for SRMs)

SLs, AC2s are very good actually, just depends on the fit

SRMs need a damage buff, Pulses need a massive duration reduction and they'll be good

Flamers and MGs are completely useless tho

[Hotthedd]

Chavette, on 13 June 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

Double FALSE!

#BACKHAND BONUS

#ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED

You can't triple-stamp a double-stamp!



<plugs ears> LALALALALALALALALLLLALALALALALLA

[Unbound Inferno]

Testing Flamers atm for the fun of it. I have DHS installed and I can't notice the self heat increase on either my C4 with 2 or my C1 with 4. It doesn't affect me.

[Mentalcowman]

Flamers in mechcommander were useful, make them like that .

[keith]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

Tell us oh wise master of balance, what are the magic numbers? How do we make flamers useful without turning them into a stun-lock? All I see so far is a lot of bitching with no solution.

but it doesn't matter if it stun locks a mech. it means u are up fire power in the long range game, 8v7 becasue flamers have a range of 64m. if u can't not do a decent amount of dam to a charging mech that has no extra range on its weps, by the time it closes to shut u down for the rest of your team to kill it while it stun locks ya. tis a team game, only thing i would fear is when they do put in inferno srms and they have a range of 270 and could stun lock u.

[Homeless Bill]

Shumabot, on 13 June 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Let them be a stunlock. It's a gun that requires that you overheat yourself, do almost no damage, and facehug something that is probably in the process of killing you while its friends ALSO are killing you. Pretending that a stunlock would somehow be overpowered is stupid, you know what's better than a stunlock? Killing your opponent, it's a stunlock that lasts forever, the least you could do is make the high risk, high investment temporary stunlock able to be materially useful in some fashion.

Stun is a ****** mechanic in my opinion. I would prefer making them less "high risk" to the user as opposed to making them more deadly. Not that I really care what happens to the flamer =P

IceSerpent, on 13 June 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

1. Flamer fires one burst of flame (instead of conitnuous fire) on 10s cooldown.
2. Each shot (burst) bumps the heat of the target by 40 (100% of scale with 10 default heatsinks) and shooter's heat by 10.
3. Destruction of the flamer bumps carrier's heat by 60 (150% of scale with 10 default heatsinks).

Any objections?

I was actually only referring to the OP since it was all whine and no solution. But since you asked, yes. It seems massively good (especially for a single ton). The long cooldown won't matter since you'd only need to use it once at the right time to completely **** someone over (and you could mount more if you ever cared). It's a hugely advantageous tradeoff (4:1), and I don't think the chance for it to cause problems if it blows up is a good way to balance it out.

The flamer is a single ton and critical slot. I'm not saying I know what to do about it, but I think that would cause some super icky balance problems with brawlers.

Steel your Life, on 13 June 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

you make flamers have fuel the fuel refills slowly drawing reserves from your engine. However you make the heat from the flamer last longer on the enemy so say you use your flame to heat the enemy up and now the enemy is at 50% heat well you stop using your flame becasue it runs out of fuel and is overheating you. So you must stop and run away to recharge or use a diff weapon group for a while. The enemy while no longer being heated his mech remains with a cool down penalty aplied to even though he is no longer being affected by a dirrect flamer. So think of it as a flamer weapon casting a debuff on you or a curse that makes you lose considerable cool down ability for a decent amount of time 5-15 seconds depending on how long the flamer put his flames on you and how many flames were on you (a stacking debuff system).

Before I read it, props for having an idea instead of just bitching.

Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, but I like the originality. You'd have to sort out some implementation details so that a Spider couldn't just run around quickly tagging everyone to cause a heat penalty. You'd also have to figure out how multiple flamers would work together.

The only thing I have against it is how complex of a system it is for a single weapon. Regardless, I'd love to see stuff like this on a live test server to see how it plays.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 13 June 2013 - 01:39 PM.

[Maliconus]

All I have to say is ...I hit you with 2 flamers and you go to 90% heat and I shut down due to heat....Really.

[xDeityx]

tenderloving, on 13 June 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

I have no stance on this, but the guy making the original claim has the burden of proof.

Actually anyone making any claim has a burden of proof. It's a technicality but an important one.

If the OP is claiming that flamers heat the target less than the 'mech they are equipped on then it is one thing to say, "I reject your claim." That requires no burden of proof on the person rejecting the claim. It is quite another thing to claim that flamers do in fact heat the target more than the 'mech on which they are equipped. That is a claim and it has the burden of proof.

It's the difference between "I don't believe you, prove it please" and "you are wrong." The former is not a claim, the latter is.

Edited by xDeityx, 13 June 2013 - 01:58 PM.

[Shumabot]

xDeityx, on 13 June 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

Actually anyone making any claim has a burden of proof. It's a technicality but an important one.

If the OP is claiming that flamers heat the target less than the 'mech they are equipped on then it is one thing to say, "I reject your claim." That requires no burden of proof on the person rejecting the claim. It is quite another thing to claim that flamers do in fact heat the target more than the 'mech on which they are equipped. That is a claim and it has the burden of proof.

It's the difference between "I don't believe you, prove it please" and "you are wrong." The former is not a claim, the latter is.

There's also simple respect and logic in discourse, PGI doesn't readily present the games statistical numbers to the games playerbase, and it's widely reported experientially (and reflected in PGIs patch notes) that the weapon heats the user faster than the target. There's a difference between wanting proof of a spurious claim and demanding proof because you want to be a tool about it. You could demand the burden of proof on any claim made, and in the English language claims are made in the majority of communications because that's the basis of communication.

[IceSerpent]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

I was actually only referring to the OP since it was all whine and no solution. But since you asked, yes. It seems massively good (especially for a single ton). The long cooldown won't matter since you'd only need to use it once at the right time to completely **** someone over (and you could mount more if you ever cared).

Ok, good point. How about this addition - all flamers you mount share cooldown and alpha-striking with multiple flamers doesn't increase the effect on target, so it's useless to have more than one. If you want to apply multiple flamer shots, you have to coordinate between multiple flamer carriers on your team.

Quote

It's a hugely advantageous tradeoff (4:1), and I don't think the chance for it to cause problems if it blows up is a good way to balance it out.

It's not a chance - if it gets destroyed, it always blows up and causes a heat spike.

[hammerreborn]

Darren Tyler, on 13 June 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Proof pl0x

Gorgarath, on 13 June 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

no your wrong this has been tested in many other posts and by me personaly flamers will overheat you faster than the enemy so your FALSE!!!

Shumabot, on 13 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

No, it's certainly not false. The ratio of self heat to heat given to the opponent is actually kinda ridiculous, but the weapon itself is an impossible unbalanceable terrible idea so the things never going to be good.

Chavette, on 13 June 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

Double FALSE!

#BACKHAND BONUS

#ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED

Quote

- Flamer self heat induction reduced from 1.1 to 1.0

Furthermore, the reason you heat up opponents slower than yourself is entirely due to heat cap. I haven't tested since the change to lower heat but previously it was a 1:1 ratio of user to enemy AS LONG AS THE NUMBER OF HEAT SINKS WERE THE SAME.

It's all about the heat cap.

[xDeityx]

Shumabot, on 13 June 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

There's also simple respect and logic in discourse, PGI doesn't readily present the games statistical numbers to the games playerbase, and it's widely reported experientially (and reflected in PGIs patch notes) that the weapon heats the user faster than the target. There's a difference between wanting proof of a spurious claim and demanding proof because you want to be a tool about it. You could demand the burden of proof on any claim made, and in the English language claims are made in the majority of communications because that's the basis of communication.

I was correcting tenderloving's assertion that it is only the party making the original claim that has the burden of proof.

But I don't really see the distinction you are making being present in this thread. It was not disrespectful at all to request proof of either claim (flamers work as intended or flamers heat the equipping 'mech up more than the target). I'd like to see the evidence myself, because I honestly couldn't tell you which way they work despite spending lots of times in the game and on these forums.

I'm not sure I completely understand your point but it sounds like you are trying to say that one of those two claims don't require evidence, which is incorrect. A claim doesn't have to be spurious in order to carry the burden of proof. Please clarify your point if I've misunderstood you.

[hammerreborn]

Maliconus, on 13 June 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

All I have to say is ...I hit you with 2 flamers and you go to 90% heat and I shut down due to heat....Really.

I fully agree with this though, the heat cap should not exist or be 90% for both.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Ok, good point. How about this addition - all flamers you mount share cooldown and alpha-striking with multiple flamers doesn't increase the effect on target, so it's useless to have more than one. If you want to apply multiple flamer shots, you have to coordinate between multiple flamer carriers on your team.

That has the downside of making absolutely no sense.

[Shumabot]

xDeityx, on 13 June 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I was correcting tenderloving's assertion that it is only the party making the original claim that has the burden of proof.

But I don't really see the distinction you are making being present in this thread. It was not disrespectful at all to request proof of either claim (flamers work as intended or flamers heat the equipping 'mech up more than the target). I'd like to see the evidence myself, because I honestly couldn't tell you which way they work despite spending lots of times in the game and on these forums.

I'm not sure I completely understand your point but it sounds like you are trying to say that one of those two claims don't require evidence, which is incorrect. A claim doesn't have to be spurious in order to carry the burden of proof. Please clarify your point if I've misunderstood you.

I'm saying its impolite to ask evidence of something that appears commonly accepted. Burden of proof doesn't exist, it's not actually a thing. There is no universal adjudicating body deciding where and when proof needs to be presented. When you walk into a discussion where something appears largely accepted and your only input is to question the basis of the conversation you are being a troll. You are refuting the majority, and therefore should present proof in order to be something other than a troll in the conversation. I can ask you to prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, to prove that it's air that you're breathing right now, and to prove that the speed limit sign wasn't put up by someone as a joke. But I won't because that'd be dumb.

[Sable Dove]

Unbound Inferno, on 13 June 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Testing Flamers atm for the fun of it. I have DHS installed and I can't notice the self heat increase on either my C4 with 2 or my C1 with 4. It doesn't affect me.

Guess what: if it doesn't affect you, it sure as hell doesn't affect them. All you're doing is making flame graphics at them.

[Deathlike]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Before I read it, props for having an idea instead of just bitching.

Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, but I like the originality. You'd have to sort out some implementation details so that a Spider couldn't just run around quickly tagging everyone to cause a heat penalty. You'd also have to figure out how multiple flamers would work together.

The only thing I have against it is how complex of a system it is for a single weapon. Regardless, I'd love to see stuff like this on a live test server to see how it plays.

Flamers temporarily slowing the dissipation rate does sound appealing.

Why not have each flamer reduce the dissipation rate by .2 per flamer over 3 seconds? Internal DHS in the engine cools .2 per DHS... and the current max of 9 flamers would only counter at most 9 engine DHS. If you don't carry any additional DHS, you're kinda screwed... and this would automatically hurt all SHS/trials builds (perhaps they only reduce SHS cooling by .1). Firing flamers constantly would only reset the 3 second timer (chain fire isn't as useful for this purpose) and that should probably "just work". #s can be tweaked.

[xDeityx]

Shumabot, on 13 June 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

I'm saying its impolite to ask evidence of something that appears commonly accepted. Burden of proof doesn't exist, it's not actually a thing. There is no universal adjudicating body deciding where and when proof needs to be presented. When you walk into a discussion where something appears largely accepted and your only input is to question the basis of the conversation you are being a troll. You are refuting the majority, and therefore should present proof in order to be something other than a troll in the conversation. I can ask you to prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, to prove that it's air that you're breathing right now, and to prove that the speed limit sign wasn't put up by someone as a joke. But I won't because that'd be dumb.

Burden of proof exists as much as any other non-physical concept, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's true that you don't often apply it to casual conversation, but a discussion on a forum should follow the rules of a reasoned discourse, not casual conversation. I think our disagreement here is that you consider how flamers behave common knowledge while many in this thread do not. I certainly don't know the answer to this debate and I am an experienced player of the game and reader of the forums. Judging by the replies in this thread there is certainly not a consensus. You should apply the Principle of Charity and not assume that the people asking for proof are trolls but rather that they actually would like to see the evidence because they haven't already.

Honestly your reaction is very surprising. I really don't understand what the problem is with providing the proof if you are so sure of the claim. In the time you've been responding to my posts you probably could have provided it (if you have it) and made this entire tangent unnecessary. Doubting that flamers work as you say is not even in the same ballpark as being a jerk and asking for evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Honestly I consider it more trollish to attack the people asking for evidence than it is to ask for evidence. Having the position that everyone already knows how something works and therefore doesn't need to be investigated from time to time is how bugs and misunderstandings about the game spread.

I'd like both sides to provide their evidence to be honest. Doing so will facilitate an actual conversation that can progress rather than this back and forth we have now.

[Shumabot]

xDeityx, on 13 June 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Burden of proof exists as much as any other non-physical concept, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's true that you don't often apply it to casual conversation, but a discussion on a forum should follow the rules of a reasoned discourse, not casual conversation. I think our disagreement here is that you consider how flamers behave common knowledge while many in this thread do not. I certainly don't know the answer to this debate and I am an experienced player of the game and reader of the forums. Judging by the replies in this thread there is certainly not a consensus. You should apply the Principle of Charity and not assume that the people asking for proof are trolls but rather that they actually would like to see the evidence because they haven't already.

Honestly your reaction is very surprising. I really don't understand what the problem is with providing the proof if you are so sure of the claim. In the time you've been responding to my posts you probably could have provided it (if you have it) and made this entire tangent unnecessary. Doubting that flamers work as you say is not even in the same ballpark as being a jerk and asking for evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Honestly I consider it more trollish to attack the people asking for evidence than it is to ask for evidence. Having the position that everyone already knows how something works and therefore doesn't need to be investigated from time to time is how bugs and misunderstandings about the game spread.

I'd like both sides to provide their evidence to be honest. Doing so will facilitate an actual conversation that can progress rather than this back and forth we have now.

Because proof is difficult to provide when PGI doesn't provide the games statistics in an up to date or easily found way. Ergo requesting the proof of something commonly understood but not easily sourced is a {Richard Cameron} move.

[Ningyo]

@ Deathlike there you go another easy method to balance them. Simplified version of what you want. Each flamer focused on target prevents 1 of the targets heatsinks from functioning, starting with engine heatsinks first. (this gets arid of problems with SHS mechs. and actually gives them an extraordinarily small advantage) To be fair I would make them do 2 heatsinks worth, meaning 5 would be needed to prevent all enemies heatsinks if they had minimum number.

And to prevent stunlock complaints make it so they can never reduce an enemy mech to less than 1 heatsink of dissipation.

(sorry If I got what you wanted wrong deathlike, but looked like this was what you were aiming for)