46 replies to this topic

[Mad Dog Morgan]

I want this thread to become a brainstorming thread as opposed to a flame-war thread. Hopefully we can achieve that.

The key problem with flamers right now is not the damage, but the utility. The cumulative heat only brings the opponent up to 90% heat, while still penalizing the individual firing them. Its range is so limited that the damage increase means next to nothing anyhow.

Damage over Time Proposition
Flamers would deal additional damage over time. Not sure how it would work with lore.

Area Denial
Flamer could burn the ground like in Battletech TT.

OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES

Here are some propositional flamer changes that drastically increase the utility (not damage output) of flamers. They may need some huge offsets.

-Reduce heat to self, increase heat on target, enable overheating to 100% heat. Pure utility.
This would reduce the time needed to keep the flamer on target, while still maintaining some semblance of balance since the projectile is slow and the range is hugely limited. Would be a lesser risk to the pilot, since the flamer is basically a giant reactor vent. This would allow teammates to hammer the target while it is disabled. (Based on discussion, probably not a great idea)

-Allow heat buildup past 90% to perhaps 145% on opponents. Increase heat generation on self and double heat dealt on target. Reduce damage, reduce crits.
This would discourage running boats that overheat, especially since the possibility of being disabled for long periods of time means vulnerability, i.e. enemy reinforcements can hammer the individual being cooked. TEAMWORK! (Probably not a great idea either)

-Enable cooking munitions and weapons through armor. Increase crit rate, bring damage to 0.8.
This is my least favored alternative since it doesn't increase the utility of the flamers as much as the other two propositional changes.

Addendum: All of these changes should entail that running multiple flamers should generate massive heat to prevent cheesing.

Seeing as I'm rather new on the forums, I'm prepared to receive "BUT THAT WOULD BE BROKEN" comments on this post. You have to be stupidly close to the target, you have to keep the flamer on target, and you risk your back armor getting eviscerated by running flamers. Plus, flamers are useless vs. lights in their current state.

Edited by Vaskadar, 19 June 2013 - 04:17 PM.

[Appogee]

I got killed by one yesterday. Surprised the hell out of me.

I was like ''LOL he is flaming me the poor sod'' and then ''oh **** I died!''.

So count me out of any plan to buff them further, thanks!

[stjobe]

Do you know what a stunlock is, and why it's bad in PvP games? If not, look it up.

The Flamer is basically an impossible to balance item, since the devs can't make it work like it should (see stunlock above), and anything else is short-changing the weapon.

Incidentally, stunlock is also a major reasons why knockdowns were so bad that they had to be removed. Taking control away from the player is bad in any game, but it's a major no-no in a PvP game.

[One Medic Army]

stjobe, on 19 June 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Do you know what a stunlock is, and why it's bad in PvP games? If not, look it up.

The Flamer is basically an impossible to balance item, since the devs can't make it work like it should (see stunlock above), and anything else is short-changing the weapon.

Incidentally, stunlock is also a major reasons why knockdowns were so bad that they had to be removed. Taking control away from the player is bad in any game, but it's a major no-no in a PvP game.

Essentially this.
Flamers which make people shutdown, and keep them shutdown, are flamers that will make people quit.
Flamers already can keep someone's heat high enough that they shut down as soon as they fire, isn't that enough?

[Mad Dog Morgan]

Appogee, on 19 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

I got killed by one yesterday. Surprised the hell out of me.

I was like ''LOL he is flaming me the poor sod'' and then ''oh **** I died!''.

So count me out of any plan to buff them further, thanks!

How many of them was he using?

[Appogee]

Flamers can also kill, as I found out yesterday.

At some point I'm going to put six of them on a Jenner and try to toast some Spiders.

Vaskadar, on 19 June 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

How many of them was he using?

Only one, I think. May have been two. I was so disinterested in them (before I died) that I didn't really notice!

[Unrelenting Farce]

The proposed removal of the heat cap of 90% is especially interesting (probably unfeasible/OP) in conjunction with the new overheat mechanics, though I suspect that PGI wants flamers to be effective at making enemy mechs overheat themselves.

I'm not totally in support of reducing self heat by any significant amount in conjunction with removing the heat cap of 90%. I don't want to see Swaybacks etc. running around with 6+ flamers because they got a few hilarious kills with them.

Perhaps the alpha-strike heat penalty could apply to flamers as well, limiting the cheese factor. (Some precautions would be necessary to prevent macro-abuse for these, however.)

Edited by Unrelenting Farce, 19 June 2013 - 01:24 PM.

[Mad Dog Morgan]

I just don't see them being useful for their weight. Most of the time, if not all of the time, you're better off putting a medium laser in the slot the flamer is in.

[Esplodin]

Flamers should be an "ammo" dependent mechanic (reactors only contain so much plasma, or other such hand waiving) that shoot at a target mech. For the next X seconds the target no longer dissipates heat, but does no damage. For mechs in overheat shutdown, heat dissipates to 90% allowing the mech to wake up normally then stops dissipating for the duration of the hit.

Done.

Edited by Esplodin, 19 June 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[stjobe]

Esplodin, on 19 June 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Flamers should be an "ammo" dependent mechanic (reactors only contain so much plasma, or other such hand waiving) that shoot at a target mech. For the next X seconds the target no longer dissipates heat, but does no damage. For mechs in overheat shutdown, heat dissipates to 90% allowing the mech to wake up normally then stops dissipating for the duration of the hit.

Done.

Interesting idea, but it might still be too close to a stunlock. You're not shut down, but you can't fire your weapons or you will be - while the Flamer 'mech of course is free to fire his or her other weapons.

[keith]

stjobe, on 19 June 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Do you know what a stunlock is, and why it's bad in PvP games? If not, look it up.

The Flamer is basically an impossible to balance item, since the devs can't make it work like it should (see stunlock above), and anything else is short-changing the weapon.

Incidentally, stunlock is also a major reasons why knockdowns were so bad that they had to be removed. Taking control away from the player is bad in any game, but it's a major no-no in a PvP game.

i love stunlock in pvp games. just has to be done right. used to do it hammer warrior in guild wars. but the skills let u only do it every 60 secs or so. did mean 1 dead person if there wasn't 2 monks. always 1 skill was only knock down if person was running so if the enemy knew what i was doing they stood still and messed ya up. stunlock has to be balanced around time it takes to do, skill, and reload to do it again.

[Homeless Bill]

At this point, machine guns and flamers have gotten enough love. They still suck, but they're not absolutely hilarious. Please PGI, forget about this ******** and focus on the other, more important, balance issues.

[I3lackI2ogue]

Incidentally, stunlock is also a major reasons why knockdowns were so bad that they had to be removed. Taking control away from the player is bad in any game, but it's a major no-no in a PvP game.

knockdowns were removed due to graphics bugs, they are making a return so start raging now.

Interesting idea, but it might still be too close to a stunlock. You're not shut down, but you can't fire your weapons or you will be - while the Flamer 'mech of course is free to fire his or her other weapons.

in a game emphasizing teamwork, you use teamwork to overcome situations like this.

Edited by I3lackI2ogue, 19 June 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[stjobe]

I3lackI2ogue, on 19 June 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

knockdowns were removed due to graphics bugs, they are making a return so start raging now.

Hey, I was there. Were you?

I3lackI2ogue, on 19 June 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

in a game emphasizing teamwork, you use teamwork to overcome situations like this.

Yes, the L2P comment. There was bound to be one sooner or later.

Edited by stjobe, 19 June 2013 - 01:52 PM.

[ExtremeA79]

stjobe, on 19 June 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Hey, I was there. Were you?


Yes, the L2P comment. There was bound to be one sooner or later.

This game should be balanced around teams, REAL teams. Not PUGS.

P.S I hate pugs, they are ugly dogs.

[Esplodin]

stjobe, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Interesting idea, but it might still be too close to a stunlock. You're not shut down, but you can't fire your weapons or you will be - while the Flamer 'mech of course is free to fire his or her other weapons.

You would not gain heat from the attack except if you fired a weapon. Say you are at 50% heat, get hit by a 2-3 second glob of plasma, and their flamer is now on a 10 sec cooldown. Your choice is to not fire, fire and watch your % go up, alpha and likely shut down - all pilot choice. Lets say you chose to alpha, shutdown, cool off normally to 90%, start up, and be stuck at 90% for a second or two before the duration wears off. In all likelihood the duration in this scenario would be up before your mech started anyway.

I'd like to beta it, but we all know where ideas go on the forums.

[Kiiyor]

Appogee, on 19 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

I got killed by one yesterday. Surprised the hell out of me.

I was like ''LOL he is flaming me the poor sod'' and then ''oh **** I died!''.

So count me out of any plan to buff them further, thanks!

But... that means they're overpowered?

[Esplodin]

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

This game should be balanced around teams, REAL teams. Not PUGS.

If this is a team game, where oh where are the team features like voice, lobby to organize and complement loadouts, etc?

Fact is it won't be a team game until the game developers build in features to support it.

[FunkyFritter]

The concept of flamers feels like a holdover of TT that should have stayed there. Effects that take control away from the player are a big no-no in first person games, a weapon designed to cause overheats is going to be underpowered or it's going to be the most obnoxious weapon ever conceived. I don't want to see what the game looks like when flamers are good enough to take over medium lasers in a competitive setting.

[aniviron]

Unrelenting Farce, on 19 June 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

The proposed removal of the heat cap of 90% is especially interesting (probably unfeasible/OP) in conjunction with the new overheat mechanics, though I suspect that PGI wants flamers to be effective at making enemy mechs overheat themselves.

I'm not totally in support of reducing self heat by any significant amount in conjunction with removing the heat cap of 90%. I don't want to see Swaybacks etc. running around with 6+ flamers because they got a few hilarious kills with them.

Perhaps the alpha-strike heat penalty could apply to flamers as well, limiting the cheese factor. (Some precautions would be necessary to prevent macro-abuse for these, however.)

As someone who has run a 9flamer 4P: if you let me get within 60m of you, everything bad that happens to your mech is your fault. 60m is so close that if you just start circle strafing and you aren't in an atlas or stalker, you will keep orbiting out of my range because my turning radius isn't fast enough to stay on target, even with a 250 engine.

I'm also not sure what's with OP's comment about "They were never meant to be a damaging weapon, and so the damage buff is a stupid decision. Its range is so limited that the damage increase means next to nothing anyhow." No, in TT, flamers do exactly the same amount of damage as a machine gun and an ac2.