18 replies to this topic

[BeardedGlass]

Mainly, Save the Flamer. Since the current meta revolves around PPC / Gauss, buffing the flamer to counter high alpha builds would be beneficial in changing the meta around so that there is more a downside to running these hot builds. It would also give lights more utility in they could keep a PPC boat bogged down more in heat management while the brawler builds / missiles have time to poke their heads out or run up to them (Respectively) and be able to do damage instead of being alpha striked faster than a Kintaro in Terra Therma.

[Sheraf]

A balance build would do better than a pure close range or a pure long range one.

[BeardedGlass]

But what about the poor state of the flamer? In other games it at least went further than 64m. In MechWarrior 4 mercs, it went out to 300 in a burst. I ran a Nova cat that had I think 6 flamers and a Medium laser. Took out two Awesome PPC boats with it. It was glorious.

[Moonreign]

As it pertains to the topic, you guys should Google the national animal of Scotland. You will not be disappointed.

[BeardedGlass]

I think that Unicorns would use Flamers.

[Lupin]

In the original board game and a number of older MW games using flamer to shutdown and kill mechs was a valid tactic. If a little dangerous.

[General Taskeen]

Not to mention too that the Flamer also did 2 Damage.

[wolf74]

Correction on flamer. In CBTa Flamer did 3 heat to self and 2 damage OR 2 heat to the target.

The best way to show these is one of two ways.
1. Toggle between damage or heat.
2. Slider to select the damage to heat ratio. (much harder to do)

[LauLiao]

Flamers were an unusual niche weapon in the first place. No reason to make them common.

[Foxfire]

They generate entirely too much heat in the user mech for the amount of heat they generate in the target mech. It is laughable.

[Bront]

wolf74, on 11 August 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Correction on flamer. In CBTa Flamer did 3 heat to self and 2 damage OR 2 heat to the target.

The best way to show these is one of two ways.
1. Toggle between damage or heat.
2. Slider to select the damage to heat ratio. (much harder to do)

There's no reason why it shouldn't do both. Heat is so borked in the game though that the flamer isn't particularly useful at the moment other than to obscure facehuggers. I like the concept of them, but I think they need to generate more heat on the opponent.

[Lykaon]

Sheraf, on 10 August 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

A balance build would do better than a pure close range or a pure long range one.

It's not range that is the primary factor in the success of the PPC/Gauss meta it is the means of damage application that matters.

As long as MWo uses it's current armor and damage models the single best way to effectively apply damage is to deal as much damage to a single location as often as possible.

This means group fire of weapons that apply damage to one location all at once ie. PPCs and gauss rifles.

[BeardedGlass]

I think that if the flamer had its own use, instead of a short range can of raid for spiders, then it would see more use. Specifically since the machinegun's purpose is to tear internals out of a 'mech, kicking and screaming, then flamers could be used to apply damage to the entire 'mech you're facing. since the range is so short (64m) it would make more sense for it to play a coating damage role instead of what it was in previous games: Mid - short range 'Your mech doesn't work anymore, silly'.

[Glucose]

They should just make flamers generate less heat to the user, and then have them disable X heat dissipation per second while applied to the target mech. The more flamers you have the quicker you disable it. With the end goal being, the mech cannot dissipate any heat (or some cap of 99%) if the flamer is on them long enough (and the cooling rate while in shutdown is not affected, so they can come back out).

This would make every shot from the target/ on-fire mech very costly -- but they could still move and get out the way

[Homeless Bill]

Fixing the flamer is so low on the priority list. Soooo very low. I'd rather see the LOD-swapping / geometry pop-in get fixed.

[Andross Deverow]

IMHO the flamer sux as it is implemented now. I preferred the way it was implemented in MW2. I would rather it sprayed a flaming material onto its target which keeps on burning, you know, DOT dramatically increasing the heat of the target mech. Kinda like a napalm spray ya know? Now I just cant wrap my head around a "Flamer" as an energy based weapon, makes no sense to me. I would think it should be more like an actual flame thrower.

But.... Its just me I know nothing.

Regards

Edited by Andross Deverow, 12 August 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Its a funny troll weapon for players that do know better, but use it anyways. Like the 6 Flamer Jenner spotted yesterday that shot random flames in the faces of my team mates, but ultimately died, having done nothing. IF you want to be a comedian, then you definitely must use a Flamer.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lupin, on 11 August 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

In the original board game and a number of older MW games using flamer to shutdown and kill mechs was a valid tactic. If a little dangerous.

No it wasn't! Well not if the players had 1/2 a brain cell.

[BeardedGlass]

Well I think the problem is that its only seen as a 'Troll weapon' and not legitimate in any use at all. I just want it to have something that makes it a viable option for builds. Right now its just "Lol, That guy is using a(ll) flamer(s)!