110 replies to this topic

[Bellum Dominum]

Here: This is the completely no brain way to use flamers without adding to your own heat. A demo only to show it can be done.

Edited by Death Drow, 12 January 2015 - 03:23 AM.

[Nightshade24]

Death Drow, on 12 January 2015 - 03:22 AM, said:

-snip-

Well regardless of how successfull you or he is at the flamer.

His suggestions wouldn't make it OP. The Machine gun still does a bit more then most of the ideas and also you rarely ever see flamers used in game unless it is the adder which is forced to use it.

If the flamer is currently okay and balanced then you would expect to see more then 2+ flamer mechs per game...
I mean the firestarter starts with 2 to 4 flamers and lots of flamers were given for the trick or treat event or stocking stuffer event.

It's not that hard to come by.

Also the only weapon with no quirk...

[Bellum Dominum]

My opinion his suggestions would. You mentioned no flamer quirks... okay I could see say reduced exponential heat gain quirk for some of the mechs but seriously changing it's damage up and so forth in this game is too much. Just because you don't see people using them doesn't mean they aren't any good.

The wolf packs I used to run all ran one flamer each and oh lordy did we get cussed

See this isn't mentioned. The flamer is an infinite ammo weapon. No cooldown to reuse it. Blinds opponents. Adds to their heat. Does damage. Used to do spread but I'm not sure that it still does.

I agree it's highly underrated, but again that does not mean it's under powered.

Edited by Death Drow, 12 January 2015 - 05:06 AM.

[Sereglach]

Death Drow, on 12 January 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

I'm sorry that you consider someone disagreeing with you as ego. I don't care how you did good or bad in other games before MWO. This is mwo not mechwarrior 4 etc etc etc.

My point was simply about this game. Flamers have been tweaked by the devs already. They work well. Sorry you disagree.
There is nothing to suggest on this topic other than perhaps take me up on my offer and let me show you how to use them to effect in this game.

You are right it's all about discipline. I can actually show you how to continually keep a flamer on the opponent and not take any actual heat yourself. In fact didn't I post a video doing it on this thread?

I'm not considering someone disagreeing with me as ego. I'm considering someone who's coming into a thread saying that I have no idea what I'm talking about, acting as though their "opinion" is the only one that matters, and that they are god of all things. Apparently you also failed to acknowledge that I absolutely love flamers, use them constantly, and state that I want them to be brought up to the standards of other weapons. On top of it, just as Nightshade24 stated, if Flamers were such great weapons, why don't we see them everywhere?

For starters, the only tweak made by the developers in the past year regarding the flamer was to alter the rate at which the acceleration calculations occur. The DPS change happened nearly 2 years ago, now, with the release of the Blackjack. Even my original write up, which was written well over a year ago, now, has the new DPS in it. I might add, as well, that the last time changes were made to the Flamer, PGI had already stated that it was a band-aid type change and were going to be looking into better ways to rework the Flamer. The Flamer has been awaiting reengineering for a LONG time.

In your video, there are a few things I'd like to point out to show the complete failing of the points you described and feel it achieves:

1. You have your flamers on either a macro, or you're just constantly cycling weapons groups with the keyboard. The macro is given away via the constant cycling of weapons groups as you're just holding down the mouse button, with absolutely perfect timing on group changes. That completely negates the flamer's ability to build heat on targets (just as you're not building heat on yourself). The macro, despite being permitted by PGI, is also negating the point of having a usable weapon without having to purchase and acquire extra peripherals outside the game.

2. You prove the weapon is subpar by utilizing two flamers to do the continuous damage of one flamer, via a macro/constant group cycling. What you are doing can be accomplished by one machine gun. Two medium lasers put onto a mech accomplish much more in the same tonnage. The point of recommending a reengineering of the Flamer is to make a valid choice between ONE Flamer and ONE Medium Laser. There should be a valid reason that a Flamer is one ton and people should consider wielding one over a Medium Laser. Right now, for 99.9999% of the population, there isn't . . . to them the Flamer is a piece of trash. There's a reason that with the Adder people were LIVID that the Flamer would be fixed equipment and they couldn't get rid of it.

3. You claim you're amazing with discipline and keeping the flamers on target, but you go into testing grounds to take your video. Practical application wins the day, not stationary targets in testing grounds. Anyone can keep their weapons fire focused on a single point of a target in Testing Grounds when both the enemy mech and themselves are stationary. My philosophies and recommendations for reengineering the Flamer come from said experience. Even videos made by excellent pilots testing Flamers (like Koniving's Flamer Stalker test), show how difficult it is to utilize Flamers and keep them precisely on target.

4. You're showing a way to game the heat acceleration of the Flamer by utilizing a pair of them on a Macro, which of course also breaks the heat damage generation of the Flamer and prevents it from fulfilling its role. The change I am proposing PGI make gets rid of that facet by giving them a static heat buildup (like EVERY other heat generating weapon), makes them more reliable at their job of CC (via applying effective heat damage to target), and seeks to make ONE Flamer a reasonable choice over ONE Medium Laser for a specific ROLE.

5. EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot to add, if the Flamers are so amazing in their current state, and you're capable of doing unstoppable things with them, then please explain to me why your spider was equipped with the typical PPC/TAG Meta build and not the pair of Flamers to begin with. That alone proves my statement that the Flamers are sadly, in their current state, subpar compared to other weapons of their type and they NEED this reengineering that was promised by PGI for well over a year now.

Again, if you've got something in mind that achieves a balanced Flamer, then by all means propose it. Right now all you've shown is a way to game the current flamer heat mechanic, use two tons to get the effective damage potential of ONE Machine Gun (with half the range), and claim that this is somehow a balanced weapon when almost no one utilizes them on the battlefield (unless forced, in the case of the Adder). Your argument and statements might have merit, if Flamers were commonly utilized.

Also, as pointed out by Nightshade24, Flamers are not found as a weapons quirk on any mech. The reason for this is because PGI themselves have admitted the Flamer is a subpar weapon, and needs reengineering. The whole purpose of the quirks was to give better performance to all chassis and their variants, thereby making them more competitive. Sadly, as much as I am loathe to admit it, Flamer quirks would not accomplish that until the Flamer itself is reengineered. Once the Flamer is reengineered, I'm sure we'll see quirks on the Firestarter line of mechs, the Blackjack 1X, and probably some of the Thunderbolts. Any other mech that has flamers on it by default would possibly see a Flamer quirk adjustment after the rework, as PGI stated that future tuning of mech quirks would focus more on the default loadouts and intended purpose of chassis and their variants.

Edited by Sereglach, 12 January 2015 - 04:55 PM.

[Will9761]

I'd love to see the Firestarter actually become a pyromaniac again.

[Bellum Dominum]

Sereglach again just because I don't pull punches doesn't mean any of what you just said. If that is how you choose to take someone who is brutally honest that is on you not them. My opinion on that.

As far as the only tweak being an adjustment to heat dissapation... you are wrong. Look at the patch notes. You will see the range was increased from 60 to 90. They also tweaked the total heat that flamers can put an enemy mech up to, but honestly I don't remember if this was upwards or downwards. I didn't even care about the heat change that came with that same patch because I'd already long figured out how to use them and not over heat myself.

Psst there is also an archived thread about flamers that is quite hillarious and talks about some of the things I have hinted at.

No I am not using a macro. That video shows that I simply put the two flamers on chain fire. THAT IS ALL.

In response to why I was using ppc and tag it's because I had been tagging for an lrm boat in it. My usual build is ppc flamer, or if you really want to go back to why I have an atlas statue in my spider it's because I used to use LRG PULSE and a flamer and hunted atlas's that had been left behind by their team to kill them solo in my spider with the lrg pulse and flamer by circling them and turning on the flamer when I came around in front and blinding them then eating up their backs with the lrg pulse. The only time I take the flamer off is to run a tag and help someone who is running an lrm boat.

As I stated that video is nothing more than to show the complete no brains required way to use two flamers and not add heat to yourself while keeping a flamer on the enemy mech. Please read that post again and you will see that.

You really crack me up with this macro business by the way. Do you not understand how chain fire works? Seriously why don't you stop trying to discredit what is right in your face and try it for yourself?

I stated the no quirks on any mechs for flamers is accurate and that I could see something in the lines of quirks for them. I disagree with changing them themselves and especially in the ways you pointed out.

Can you show me where PGI has stated that flamers need reworked yet again? I'd like to read that thread.

EDIT: The only thing proven in this thread by you so far is that no matter how or what evidence is presented to show that you are inaccurate in your statements about something you will fight for an excuse to discredit. Please try these things I've shown for yourself before discrediting yourself even further.

Edited by Death Drow, 13 January 2015 - 11:02 AM.

[Bellum Dominum]

On 'flamers are a subpar weapon':

First of all flamers are actually another anti-personal weapon. According to the 'lore' and the table top rules they aren't supposed to do any damage to mechs at all. Only heat, but they aren't supposed to add heat to the mech using them as the flamer actually is venting plasma from the engine of the mech. They are supposed to actually take a mech up in heat all the way to shutdown, again by table top and lore. If enough flamers are used over the target mech's heat dissapation.

The flamer adds heat to a mech by causing the heatsinks to suck in flames instead of cool air, again according to lore and table top.

If PGI were to bring every 'weapon' in the game to 'par' with each other then we'd be firing ppc's at the rate of AC2's that add no more heat than a small laser and do AC20 damge.

Edited by Death Drow, 13 January 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[Bellum Dominum]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Flamer

Oh and I stand corrected. They are supposed to actually do some damage but as MWO has it very little.

Would be awesome to set things like trees to fire as well but we have no environmental damage in the game at all so that is why I didn't go into that aspect of the flamer.

[Sereglach]

Death Drow, on 13 January 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:

Sereglach again just because I don't pull punches doesn't mean any of what you just said. If that is how you choose to take someone who is brutally honest that is on you not them. My opinion on that.

As far as the only tweak being an adjustment to heat dissapation... you are wrong. Look at the patch notes. You will see the range was increased from 60 to 90. They also tweaked the total heat that flamers can put an enemy mech up to, but honestly I don't remember if this was upwards or downwards. I didn't even care about the heat change that came with that same patch because I'd already long figured out how to use them and not over heat myself.

Psst there is also an archived thread about flamers that is quite hillarious and talks about some of the things I have hinted at.

The increase to 90 meters happened after this thread was created, close to the release of the Firestarter, as I stated several times before. You seem to think that this thread was created just a month or so ago. I suggest looking over the dates, read all of the information, and actually take it all into consideration.

I am an avid follower of patch notes, and have read through all of them. I'm not going to go digging up the last change to flamers, but I can tell you that it WAS around the release of the Firestarter (which occurs nearly 7 months after this thread was created, and was over a year ago now).

The system you use to prevent heat generation on yourself also prevents heat from being built up on the target. There is an acceleration mechanic within flamers that causes heat buildup over time. By using your method to break flamers, you've utterly broken them. You're doing less overall damage then one Machine Gun (which is still .1 DPS higher then a single flamer), with less range. That's all you've accomplished. That does not make them an excellent and viable weapon in comparison to other weapons.

Also, you seem to have your timetables wrong, still, on when and how Flamer adjustments where made. I'll elaborate more on that towards the end of this post.

Quote

No I am not using a macro. That video shows that I simply put the two flamers on chain fire. THAT IS ALL.
-snip-
You really crack me up with this macro business by the way. Do you not understand how chain fire works? Seriously why don't you stop trying to discredit what is right in your face and try it for yourself?

Then apparently you're capable of firing chain fire in what appears to be near perfect precision, which I also stated was a possibility. However, again, the precision and layout and constant beeping of weapon group swaps (that can be heard in the video) points at a macro. Again, this is ascertained using the evidence provided, that you yourself are demanding be done. If you're not using a macro (which I do understand how chain fire works, as well, you don't need to attempt to sling around insults . . . that will just lead to you being reported) then you've just got amazing precision and perfection with your trigger timing, and I applaud you for that. However, your setup still does not prove Flamers as a balanced weapon that is on par with everything else available.

Quote

In response to why I was using ppc and tag it's because I had been tagging for an lrm boat in it. My usual build is ppc flamer, or if you really want to go back to why I have an atlas statue in my spider it's because I used to use LRG PULSE and a flamer and hunted atlas's that had been left behind by their team to kill them solo in my spider with the lrg pulse and flamer by circling them and turning on the flamer when I came around in front and blinding them then eating up their backs with the lrg pulse. The only time I take the flamer off is to run a tag and help someone who is running an lrm boat.

As I stated that video is nothing more than to show the complete no brains required way to use two flamers and not add heat to yourself while keeping a flamer on the enemy mech. Please read that post again and you will see that.

I could care less why you use the builds you have. I'm stating that your "standard" setup, that you showed, is a common meta build for the mech. If Flamers were truly a balanced and viably competitive weapon, then we'd see them on the battlefield more often.

Quote

I stated the no quirks on any mechs for flamers is accurate and that I could see something in the lines of quirks for them. I disagree with changing them themselves and especially in the ways you pointed out.

Can you show me where PGI has stated that flamers need reworked yet again? I'd like to read that thread.

Just look at the developer tracker thread, updated regularly by Helmer. Everything you need to see is there. As recently as just before the holiday break Russ himself was stating, on twitter, that he knows Flamers are subpar weapons and he wants to see them reengineered soon (potentially to be a somewhat energy based machine gun). You can do your own research on the forums. Everything is there for you. You claim that everyone broke flamers and proved their amazing capabilities in an archived thread, but you don't link it. I suggest following your own mantras before making demands of others.

Quote

EDIT: The only thing proven in this thread by you so far is that no matter how or what evidence is presented to show that you are inaccurate in your statements about something you will fight for an excuse to discredit. Please try these things I've shown for yourself before discrediting yourself even further.

I am taking your evidence into consideration, refuting it, and throwing rebuttals back at you that you've yet to be able to respond to. You've since gone on tirades to just scream and complain that I'm not accepting of your view. I propose to you yet again. If you have a way to rebalance Flamers that are viable and effective weapons, and balanced for the gameplay, then I ask you to propose it. So far you have failed to do so, which is applying a heavy amount of discredit to your argument without me needing to do anything. You have lots of remarks to make, and opinions, but no answers.

Now, as for your other points you make:

1. Flamers do damage to mechs, and yes, while it is minimal, the damage value is comparable to a Machine Gun, so the DPS should be at least as sustainable as that. At the time of the original posting, Machine Guns did a solid 1 DPS, while Flamers were set to do .7 DPS. Even at the final proposed stats, I only suggest bumping up the Flamers to .8 DPS . . . which conveniently and ironically is exactly where the MG is sitting currently.

2. You need to brush up on your lore. Heatsinks function as a heat pump . . . they do not suck in cold air from the atmosphere. A mech actually sucks the heat out of itself, and its internal systems, and forces it out of the mech through heat sinks. This is how Mechs are able to function in climates that are otherwise even more hot/inhospitable outside the mech as they are inside. Flamers function by actually projecting heat (via Hot-Plasma based jets of flame) directly into the enemy target, forcing a heat buildup within the mech's own structure.

3. You obviously didn't read the entire original write-up, where I do address being able to overload and/or stunlock mechs in TT. I also address how that would potentially create a broken mechanic in MWO, and understand why things are balanced the way they are, currently, which prevents you from forcing enemy mechs to shutdown and/or overload.

4. Weapons being on "par" with each other does not necessarily imply that all weapons have the same cooldown, dps, damage numbers, etc. across the board. What it does imply is that weapons have some sort of functionality that makes them a viable choice to fill a role or gameplay style. The role and gameplay style that the Flamer should be filling, it is currently not capable of doing so adequately, thereby making it a subpar weapon. I still use them, I am a diehard Flamer fan. I also do this knowing that I am intentionally gimping myself.

5. You continually make references to changes to the Flamers, many of which happened LONG before this post was even written (again, most of the current flamer stats we have were enacted at the release of the Blackjack). You seem to have your timetables screwed up and I suggest you go back and research them for yourself. To reiterate:

-The heat scaling mechanic that we currently have was implemented with the Blackjack.
-Approximately 2 months after that the acceleration rates were adjusted.
-Then, the last adjustments were made around the release of the Firestarter, where the range was bumped up to 90m and the calculation rates were adjusted again (albeit slightly).
-It was also mentioned at the time of the last adjustments that those changes were a Band-Aid, to help the weapon along until a complete reengineering of the Flamer could be completed.
-The last we heard about the reengineering of the Flamer was in February 2014 where Paul Inouye stated that engineers were working on it and we'd be given final numbers/mechanics when they were available.
-In September 2014 Russ mentioned he wants to complete the reengineering of the Flamer, but that there were bigger fish to fry (CW Phase 2).
-The Flamer has recently come up in conversation, again, post CW Phase 2 release . . . no real news has occurred other than Russ stating that he's considered an energy based machine gun kind of rework, even if it is a temporary solution.

There you have it. That is where things currently sit. The Flamer is an acknowledged "subpar" weapon that is currently awaiting reengineering. The reengineering is not an IF, but a WHEN. I'd suggest you come up with ways to help be constructive in the situation and recommend ways to make the weapon viable and balanced for the game. That was the whole point of this original conversation and the thread's original inception. I'll say again that numbers are merely place holders, and it's looking more at ratios, mechanics, and concepts that make for the important parts of the conversation.

[Bellum Dominum]

#1 Repeating opinions is not evidence nor refute. Yes even PGI, Russ included, saying they THINK flamers need reworked is an opinion and it's one I assume is largely based on posts like yours. Opinions are not evidence.

#2 As far as that mechanic not adding heat I invite you to come test that with me as well. I've seen plenty of mechs shutdown, as well as others have, using that mechanic on them but to be completely honest I can not say as to if that is due to the flamers or the target freaking out. As far as 'completely broken' I refer you back to how I use flamers and the many times I've stated I didn't care about the heat. As far as damage I refer you back to the video (no weapons but flamers at all and only 2 flamers being used in chainfire), and yes they do less than machine gun but guess what... they should. EDIT: I will take a buddy into a private match and we will test if this mechanic does or does not add heat. I will be the target mech and record it. I'll post it either way so everyone knows for a fact (with imagine that actual evidence) one way or another.

#3 I did read that. There is no point for me to to respond with anything about it or respond to it because I in no way have suggested any changes to the flamer let alone a going back to being able to stun lock someone.

#4 Flamers fit a number of peoples play style so by your definition they are on par. Just because they don't fit everyone's playstyle does not change that.

#5 Finally you admit that changes have been made. Thank you.

In conclusion thank you for directing me (usually done with a link but I'll hunt that down) to where a discussion with PGI development is on going about flamers. It is clear to me that if what you are saying is true about the expressed opinion on flamers by PGI then they certainly need some input from those who do use them to effect and are willing to admit what is overpowered or would be.

Edited by Death Drow, 13 January 2015 - 01:44 PM.

[Bellum Dominum]

Oh and as far as lore I already posted one wiki link and admitted where I was wrong. Need I post a pdf as well?

Video incoming and guess what. Again you are wrong.
EDIT: Taking a bit sorry about that, but I have to reinstall my editing software, then edit, and then upload to youtube.

Edited by Death Drow, 13 January 2015 - 03:52 PM.

[Sereglach]

Death Drow, on 13 January 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

#1 Repeating opinions is not evidence nor refute. Yes even PGI, Russ included, saying they THINK flamers need reworked is an opinion and it's one I assume is largely based on posts like yours. Opinions are not evidence.

#2 As far as that mechanic not adding heat I invite you to come test that with me as well. I've seen plenty of mechs shutdown, as well as others have, using that mechanic on them but to be completely honest I can not say as to if that is due to the flamers or the target freaking out. As far as 'completely broken' I refer you back to how I use flamers and the many times I've stated I didn't care about the heat. As far as damage I refer you back to the video (no weapons but flamers at all and only 2 flamers being used in chainfire), and yes they do less than machine gun but guess what... they should. EDIT: I will take a buddy into a private match and we will test if this mechanic does or does not add heat. I will be the target mech and record it. I'll post it either way so everyone knows for a fact (with imagine that actual evidence) one way or another.

#3 I did read that. There is no point for me to to respond with anything about it or respond to it because I in no way have suggested any changes to the flamer let alone a going back to being able to stun lock someone.

#4 Flamers fit a number of peoples play style so by your definition they are on par. Just because they don't fit everyone's playstyle does not change that.

#5 Finally you admit that changes have been made. Thank you.

In conclusion thank you for directing me (usually done with a link but I'll hunt that down) to where a discussion with PGI development is on going about flamers. It is clear to me that if what you are saying is true about the expressed opinion on flamers by PGI then they certainly need some input from those who do use them to effect and are willing to admit what is overpowered or would be.

I am not repeating opinions, I am supplying information that can easily be garnered throughout the game.

As far as testing the mechanics you fail to notice in the original write-up that I have thoroughly tested the Flamer and its mechanics, which was part of the reason for the whole write-up to begin with.

If you're not contributing to the conversation about the Flamer reengineering (that again, is not an IF, but a WHEN, as PGI has stated it NEEDS to be done and WILL be done when engineering staff is available), then you're contributing nothing to the conversation. I bid you good day over this.

Flamers do not fulfill their role as intended, therefore they do not fit the play-style that is intended, and do not fulfill their role. People, like myself, who qualify as "tryhards" to make something work that is subpar (I point you at all the Dragon and Awesome pilots for AGES who were intentionally piloting non-competitive mechs and getting results with them) do not count as making a weapon work. You still fail to make your point or case. If your point is true, then there would have never been a need for quirks, as people were, in fact, using Dragons, Awesomes, and other subpar variants/chassis, even when they were considered by-and-large to be worthless. Your point is invalid.

I have never said changes haven't been made. You're making assumptions, or you're intentionally trying to troll. Either is fruitless and pointless. In fact, I've been pointing out to you over and over again that you have your timelines and concepts off. You have contradicted yourself and turned yourself into a hypocrite for this argument's sake. Thank you.

PGI has had the conversation ongoing for some time, now, albeit on and off. I have contributed as much as I can via posts in this forum and continued posts in feedback sections, patch notes, town halls, etc. I probably use flamers more than almost anyone else in MWO. Therefore I am speaking from experience with them. If you want to provide input then by all means please provide constructive feedback. Unconstructive feedback (as you have been providing) is a waste of everyone's time. It's not an opinion, PGI has made STATEMENTS that the Flamer is NOT where they want it and that the Flamer is a subpar weapon. Changes will be coming via reengineering. Again, pure numbers that I have proposed are merely placeholders, and the concepts, mechanics, and ratios are the focus of the conversation.

[Bellum Dominum]

#1 My ONLY point on this thread as has already been stated many times is simply that flamers do not need changed from how they are now.

#2 If you choose to disregard the evidence and facts that is entirely up to you.

#3 I am adding a valuable contribution to the conversation about flamers by providing a counter opinion and supporting facts and evidence.

#4 Calling someone a troll is not adding any value to the conversation. I have refrained from personally attacking you. Please show the same respect.

#5 It's awesome that you too care enough about the game and it's development to contribute to conversations.

#6 Other than the very rare joke I only come on to the forums to try to help others out. Except my post asking others opinions on a new rig build.

#7 Your testing of the Flamer mechanics must have been flawed because the data you are presenting is not accurate. As I have shown with the first video and will be with this second one as well.

#8 I haven't found that there is any dedicated thread in the developer section on flamers. I know you stated it is mentioned in the CW thread but if this is such a 'WHEN not IF' don't you agree that there should be a dedicated thread on it? A thread in which everyone should be welcome to add their thoughts?

Now in this video my buddy is using the mechanic that you say will not add heat to the target mech.
I am in a Wolverine 6k:
Engine: Standard 275
Additional Heatsinks: 0 (not even one in the engine)
Heatsink type: Standard
It was my intention to use as close to a base 1 setup I could, but I just realized that my mech is Mastered. My bad on that.

http://youtu.be/lpxfQ7ihYhE

Edited by Death Drow, 13 January 2015 - 05:40 PM.

[Bellum Dominum]

There are other tricks as well to do effectively the same thing. That DO NOT use macros.

I only played the Spider 5D with LRG PULSE and a FLAMER for months and yet I have admitted to not knowing everything about the flamer and shown I was willing to go and test and find out. I am more than willing to go into private matches with anyone to test things and/or show them how to use the flamer to effect.

[Sereglach]

Death Drow, on 13 January 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

#1 My ONLY point on this thread as has already been stated many times is simply that flamers do not need changed from how they are now.

#2 If you choose to disregard the evidence and facts that is entirely up to you.

#3 I am adding a valuable contribution to the conversation about flamers by providing a counter opinion and supporting facts and evidence.

#4 Calling someone a troll is not adding any value to the conversation. I have refrained from personally attacking you. Please show the same respect.

#5 It's awesome that you too care enough about the game and it's development to contribute to conversations.

#6 Other than the very rare joke I only come on to the forums to try to help others out. Except my post asking others opinions on a new rig build.

#7 Your testing of the Flamer mechanics must have been flawed because the data you are presenting is not accurate. As I have shown with the first video and will be with this second one as well.

#8 I haven't found that there is any dedicated thread in the developer section on flamers. I know you stated it is mentioned in the CW thread but if this is such a 'WHEN not IF' don't you agree that there should be a dedicated thread on it? A thread in which everyone should be welcome to add their thoughts?

Now in this video my buddy is using the mechanic that you say will not add heat to the target mech.
I am in a Wolverine 6k:
Engine: Standard 275
Additional Heatsinks: 0 (not even one in the engine)
Heatsink type: Standard
It was my intention to use as close to a base 1 setup I could, but I just realized that mech is Mastered. My bad on that.

http://youtu.be/lpxfQ7ihYhE

Congratulations, your video shows that IF you can keep the flamers flawlessly on target, you've found an exploit in the current PGI Flamer mechanics. That would, in essence, then, be an exploit, and against the code of conduct for the game (like the fact that you can stand on other mechs, but that is an exploit and is considered a bannable offense if used actively in game). The fact that people aren't running around doing this non-stop proves it also as such.

However, you're also standing still and keeping the flamers perfectly on target. If those flamers break contact, then the calculation resets, and you cease to gain heat.

So, basically this video shows that PGI's coding has a flaw and you've found a way to exploit this flaw for an in game cheat. Good day.

[Bellum Dominum]

Just wow. Now chain fire is an exploit. Seriously man?

Yes I'm standing still. Remember it was my attempt to be at base 1. By not moving I am not adding heat to myself by moving.

Of course the flamers are being kept 'perfectly on target'. That is the WHOLE point of the flamer. This too is an exploit?

Edited by Death Drow, 13 January 2015 - 05:52 PM.

[Sereglach]

Death Drow, on 13 January 2015 - 05:51 PM, said:

Just wow. Now chain fire is an exploit. Seriously man?

Yes I'm standing still. Remember it was my attempt to be at base 1. By not moving I am not adding heat to myself by moving.

Of course the flamers are being kept 'perfectly on target'. That is the WHOLE point of the flamer. This too is an exploit?

Finding a way to bypass the intended programming of the weapon system to avoid the heat acceleration mechanic on yourself while still imposing it on your target is an exploit of a loophole in the programming of the weapon system, plain and simple. You found an unintended loophole, and you're exploiting it. That is, for intents and purposes, improper game activity that violates the code of conduct and/or terms of use for the game. How is that ok in any way shape or form?

So it's suddenly ok to jump on Locusts with Catapults to go buzzing around at 170kph and launching your missiles, because the game lets you do it? No, it's not. It's considered an exploit, and people have been banned for it. This is also an exploit.

If anything, that's just more evidence that the Flamer is in dire need of reengineering.

Edited by Sereglach, 13 January 2015 - 06:02 PM.

[Bellum Dominum]

Okay then how I usually use a flamer: Simply stop using it by timing it mentally before it adds heat to me is as well an exploit. People not firing again before they overheat and shut down must also be an exploit.

I concede that the two flamer on chain fire really shouldn't work that way and by that it's an exploit in the loosest definition of exploit. However as I said there are many ways to do this. My prefered: Stop the flamer before it adds heat to me. Again without the use a macro.

Simple fix for PGI, if they say it shouldn't do that: Tweak the chain fire change weapon times of flamers by a second or two.

EDIT: OR they could code it so that the transfer carries over the original flamers heat to the second so that it continues to raise in heat as if simply using a single flamer. Oh and I by far am not the one that discovered this trick. It's been around a LONG time.

Edited by Death Drow, 14 January 2015 - 12:45 AM.

[Bellum Dominum]

@Ozealot yeah I know macro's are fine. I do use them for other things. Just the flamer I've used so much I don't even have to think about it anymore to know when to stop using one so I don't add heat to myself.

I'm quite sure that PGI does not consider this application/mechanic to be an exploit either. However, because Sereglach has presented such biased data, can't simply admit he was wrong about something, and I want to make sure that I'm not risking getting anyone else in trouble who might use this mechanic in an actual match I have emailed PGI to inquire as to what their official opinion on this matter is.

I also have posted a question for the town hall meeting tonight with Russ asking that if they are planning on changing the flamer yet again if they would dedicate a thread on these forums to the flamer in which either Russ or the developer that will be in charge of those changes are involved in. So that they can get input not just from those who are complaining but from those who are fine with how they are today.

I'd rather see PGI working on actual problems than wasting their time by fixing something that is not broken and then getting a whole new rash of complaints and having to return to it yet another time.... you see the circle of nonsense it would cause.

[Bellum Dominum]

Still waiting on a response email. Usually PGI gets back with me the next day during a work week, but then I have only emailed PGI maybe 5 times this whole time and never about something as ridiculas as Sereglach's claim on this.

I did notice however that one of the Dev's posted on the townhall meeting thread the time of the townhall and that it is with Russ RIGHT after I responded to Sereglach's twisting and practically flat out lying about what I have presented and said on this matter.

Waiting with NGNG playing for the townhall to see if Russ and NGNG bother to waste a minute telling Sereglach he is wrong. I wonder if that will finally get him to admit it to himself.... I've seen other miracles happen.