42 replies to this topic

[Piney II]

Dropping mechs that troll with flamers is most satisfying.

Don't bring a torch to a cannon fight.

[Mcgral18]

Mister D, on 30 July 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

1 thing that would make flamers worth it.

When a target mech has been flamed, it disables the Quick start upgrade for a set # of seconds.

So if you do manage to shut a guy down, he doesn't just bounce back up to blast you in the face.

Impossible to shut someone down with Flamers since it caps at 90%. They can shut themselves down, if that's what you mean.

It is a very short period of time to restart.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd consider giving them a beam duration and a cooldown just like other energy weapons.

Doing that will prevent the exponetial heat thing, they currently can do on the user; and allows it to be used with other weapons.

So for example, if the cooldown is set to 2.25 (I'd be fine with 2.00) then it can fire together with SLs and SPLs, and it could have a burn time of say 0.80 so it doesn't exactly sync up with those Laser weapons. And they'd still spread damage and increase heat as they currently do, just making it easier to manage for the user with other weapons on the mech.

From there, then its damage and heat on enemy can be tweaked as necessary.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Let me rephrase.

If a guy shuts himself down while being flamed, allowing the flamer to disable his Quick Ignition for that period of time would be nice.

[Joseph Mallan]

Just going to leave this here...

Quote

Introduced in 2025, the standard Flamer taps into a BattleMech's reactor to produce heat in the form of a plasma release. An extremely short-ranged weapon, the Flamer is devastating against infantry, however damage done against other 'Mechs and vehicles is negligible, though it can raise the enemy unit's heat levels. The Flamer is also often used to set ambient objects such as trees aflame, making it useful for burning forests or cities in order to slow the enemy down or cover friendly movements. A clear example of such is the Firestarter BattleMech.

It is not meant to damage a Mech, but jack with its heat by a few points. On TT that was a Max of +6 points of heat IIRC.

This has been a public service announcement.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 July 2014 - 11:32 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Just going to leave this here...
It is not meant to damage a Mech, but jack with its heat by a few points. On TT that was a Max of +6 points of heat IIRC.

This has been a public service announcement.

As we have been saying it has to do something or be rendered useless. According to TT rules and the fact PGI can barely keep stompy robot deathmatch from falling apart let alone implement the rest of the game let alone implement AI elements for the flamer to be devastating against, as it stands the Flamer is currently useless, by which i mean without use, ie. not worth taking.

SO we are gonna have to deviate from TT on this one to make it a viable weapon OR just decide that it belongs in the trash pile. My vote is that it generates half the heat to the user than to the target so either halve it's heat per shot or double it's heat effect.

Edited by Agent of Change, 30 July 2014 - 11:42 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Agent of Change, on 30 July 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

As we have been saying it has to do somethign or be rendered useless. According to TT rules and the fact PGI can barely keep stompy robot deathmatch from falling apart let alone implement the rest of the game let alone implement AI elements for the flamer to be devestating to the Flamer is currently useless. Without use, not worth taking.

SO we are gonna have to deviate from TT on this one to make it a viable weapon OR just decide that it belongs in the trash pile. My vote is that it generates half the heat to the user than to the target so either halve it's heat per shot or double it's heat effect.

Or... we could allow it to be the useless crit/tonnage filler it is on TT? Nobody takes Flamers as a weapon of choice. Let it be what it is, and move on.

Remember a Flamer makes more heat for the user than causes to the target. That is in Universe physics.

[Agent of Change]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Or... we could allow it to be the useless crit/tonnage filler it is on TT? Nobody takes Flamers as a weapon of choice. Let it be what it is, and move on.

Remember a Flamer makes more heat for the user than causes to the target. That is in Universe physics.

That too is an option in which case leave it alone and we are done. but if we are talking about making a weapon viable i think we need to deviate. Look at all the non TT changes already. I mean hell an AC/2 has a fire rate that is ridiculous even when compared to how everything else was sped up. Honestly it would be nice to have it as an option but I don't care much one way or the other.

[Ambuscade]

Bishop and Agent both have valid points, however I'd like to try and make one of my own. If I'm not mistaken, in TT the flamer had a choice of either doing heat damage or physical damage but not both (this was a driving force to my weapon module choices by the way).

So, in my mind we should have a flamer that deals decent heat and physical based damage (preferably enough for the community to recognize it as a "decent" weapon and not regard it as something entirely underpowered/overpowered). Then, players can use weapon modules to specialize it. Depending on pilot preference, they may go full heat or physical damage (or a middle road) thus simulating the TT choice of either heat or damage.

So the break in TT is giving the flamer both capabilities to an extent. The weapon modules will allow the lore buffs to have their cake and eat it too. Just my thoughts on how the flamer should be.

Ambuscade

[Ambuscade]

Since the discussion has deviated from the discussion of weapon modules, I thought to try and nudge it back. Surprisingly enough I'm shocked to see no posts about the Heat Cap module that I proposed.

What are your thoughts on the Heat Cap module? Should it be implemented as a weapon module? If so should it be a tiered module (levels 1-5) or standalone? Finally how high should it be able to raise the heat cap?

Please, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
Ambuscade

[terrycloth]

I didn't even know there was a heat cap. Now that I know, I'm never using flamers again.

Having it be a super-expensive module is a bad idea since it's essential to making them even a little bit useful, and who's going to spend millions just to see if it works?

[Joseph Mallan]

Agent of Change, on 30 July 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

That too is an option in which case leave it alone and we are done. but if we are talking about making a weapon viable i think we need to deviate. Look at all the non TT changes already. I mean hell an AC/2 has a fire rate that is ridiculous even when compared to how everything else was sped up. Honestly it would be nice to have it as an option but I don't care much one way or the other.

Flamers were physiological weapons as was Infernos. Who gets scared of roasting looking at a cartoon fire? Flamers are not meant to be effective Mech killing weapons. They were to be used to cripple Mechs that were already hot.

[Ambuscade]

Good points, I appreciate the feedback. The entire reason for the heat cap's existence is to prevent stunlocking. The dev's wish to avoid a mech or mechs from being capable of permanently shutting down a mech through the use of flamers. This was a serious issue back in closed beta. I'm sure we can all agree that a permanent shutdown scenario is not fun and thus undesirable. What I am merely trying to do is propose way to allow shutdown without allowing abuse.

My suggestion is merely a part of this overall goal. That part being allowing only a mech heavily specialized in incendiary based attacks to be capable of shutting down a mech. This helps to prevent entire teams from exploiting the mechanic, though still possible. The second part would be to implement some sort of mechanic that prevents the permanent shutdown of a mech (though I imagine 11 other teammates blasting away at the attacker might already be a potent solution).

Joseph, as much as I respect you, I'm going to have to have disagree. The weapon is in the game, and I think rather than removing it we should try to improve it. The machine guns used to be in the same boat of non functionality. I believe we can all agree that MGs are no longer a weapon that can be ignored on the battlefield. However, they are not a premier mech killing weapon, but they serve their purpose very well. I am not jockeying for a flamer that burns through armor better than most lasers. I am merely advocating for a better weapon system.

Ambuscade

[Tyman4]

Wants ER Flamer. Wants 500m range for tier 5 flamer weapon module. Wants to see little ppc cicada melt MUWHAAHHAHAHAHAH!!!

Tyman

[monk]

If stun lock is the issue, why not give the flamer an alternate purpose?

Some ideas:
- Flamers have a % chance to cook off ammo if applied to proper locations
- Flamers have a % chance to "stick" to the mech (increases over time) and when it occurs, they leave a burning fire effect in the viewport for a few seconds.
- Flamers cause the vision of the target to get a "steam" like effect that builds to a max effect after X seconds and then cools off after Y seconds.
- Flamers don't have a heat cap, but heat at 1 to 1 ratio. Sure, you can cook someone, but you better be ready to be hot yourself.
- Flamers use ammo and have no heat cap. Ammo has a higher than normal chance to cook off compared to normal ammo.
- Flamers reduce your heat over time, but still have a heat cap.

I dunno. That's 20 seconds of ideas. I'm sure something in there is a root for a good idea. But we can also just have a useless weapon in the game. It's not like it's the only one. =P

As for the original post? All the weapon modules right now are lame. A LOT more thought needs to go into this system to make it not boring and worthless. It could be an amazing money sink with some notable effect on the game, but as is, even at level 5, I can't see them really being worth the cost in cbills or detriments. I'm hoping that PGI reworks the whole concept. They could be tweaking so many variables and making the modules interesting and fun to play with.

[Ambuscade]

Love your post monk, lots of constructive ideas. My favorites are the first three.

For the first one I think flamers should only be able to cook off ammo if applied to exposed internals. I believe they already have a higher crit chance, so giving them a bonus to chance and damage when critical striking ammo. Perhaps they could even increase the chance for ammo explosion if damaged/destroyed by a flamer.

An "ignited" debuff would also be a neat idea. Perhaps it can only be applied after so many seconds of continuous exposure.

Absolutely love the steam idea as well. Kind of like the hud flicker from MW4 Mercs which occurred when your heat level hit a certain point. My take on the idea would be to give the flamer the sole ability to do this (not based on heat level). I don't think it should be steam (so many people complained over the frosted cockpit glass effect). I think the flickering hud would be better. The flamer already has a superb ability to blind the target. A flickering hud would add to this effect by inhibiting the use of the paper doll readout and the target box around your mech for targeting.

Furthermore, weapon modules could be invented to improve the capabilities of all three abilities. Superb post monk.
Ambuscade

[Khobai]

The whole reason the flamer doesnt work like tabletop is because its hitscan and fires continuously. PGI had to make the heat generation exponential in order to balance it. And it makes it worthless.

Instead, the flamer should have a several second long cooldown and shoot a fireball projectile that increases the heat of whatever it hits. That way the the flamer can work exactly like its supposed to.

Edited by Khobai, 01 August 2014 - 07:41 AM.

[Ambuscade]

I think the exponential heat generation adds some skill to flamer usage. You need to setup your weapons so you can alternate between "Full Burn" (all flamers firing continuously), to "Chain Burn" (alternating flamers using chain fire). You lead with a full burn to inflict as much heat as possible in the initial attack. Then, when your heat climbs up too high you can switch to chain burn to cool off (since chain firing flamers produces negligible heat). You alternate between the two fire modes as necessary.

A more through explanation of the flamers heat mechanics from PGI would do a lot to help the flamer's success on the battlefield.

As to the burst flamer idea, why not have both? We have pulse and standard lasers, why not two alternate forms of flamers that offer two distinct sets of advantages and drawbacks?

Just my thoughts.
Ambuscade

[Ambuscade]

After a few days break, I'd thought to revisit my old thread, post, and see what shakes loose. As such, I will offer a few more of my thoughts for discussion:

Thought 1) The heat cap may never change - I understand why we have a heat cap for flamer heat based damage. It prevents stun locking which is a very good thing to prevent. However, it is quite difficult to hit that 90%. At the moment, flamers aren't performing their unique role to an effective extent. A buff to its effectiveness would do much to improve it, but I believe it won't be enough.

Thought 2) The flamer will never compete with the small/medium laser in damage. This is as it should be, mainly because of the exponential heat gain of the flamer. Furthermore, the two lasers also deliver their damage much more effectively to the target. With the short burn of the beam, the lasers are more FLPP then the flamer (the flamer being a completely DOT weapon).

Thought 3) Considering thoughts 1 and 2, I believe the hope of the flamer lies in special abilities. These abilities should add unique utility to the weapon that offer potential game changing effects. The flamer should be competing for the "tonnage filling" spot with heat sinks/ammo/weapons with its utility above all else. Such abilities can be native to the weapon system (like the EMP effect of the PPC towards ECM) or added on with a weapon module (like the EMP and increased duration of NARC from the Enhanced Narc module).

Ideas from monk and other fellow mechwarriors about such abilities are the key. Weapon modules are one such way to deliver such abilities, plus offer enhanced customization of play style. I firmly believe both abilities and weapon modules are integral to bringing the flamer out of obscurity onto the MWO battlefield.

Please continue to read and discuss. I thank you for your input and continued support.
Ambuscade

[Ambuscade]

First and foremost, let me apologize for the triple post. Yesterday I managed to get some cockpit time in, and the results I wish to post here. I finally got to take my Firestarter-FS9H out several times. Its loadout is as follows:

4x Flamers (two in each arm)
2x Machine Guns (one in each side torso)
2x Medium Lasers (two in the center torso)
No Jump Jets
~ 13 Double Heat Sinks

The results were mixed, however the design performed way better than I expected. The reason for most of my poorer performances was mostly because of stupid piloting mistakes (which in a light are usually fatal). The first thing that stood out was the damage. My better games saw damage above 100 (pretty good in a flamer build), and one game on canyon (of all places) I almost broke 300. The build is startlingly effective on open internals. The crit seeking of the flamers and machine guns allowed me to shred wounded internals in short order. This resulted in a surprising number of kills (I was shocked to even get kills).

The chassis (though not elited) gave me a pretty decent full burn time (all flamers full blast) before switching to chain fire. The heat damage was pretty good too. I managed to force a few mechs to shut themselves down (if only for a second or two).

All in all, I found that even I had underestimated the weapon system. At 0.7 damage per second (7 damage in 10 seconds, compared to 10 for medium lasers and 9 for smalls), four flamers pack a mean punch. Again, heat damage is good (can't find any numbers on it though). The heat wasn't too bad either, which will get better once the chassis is elited and I start adding coolshots for emergency cooling.

Two things I think truly think hold this weapon back. The first is the exponential heat gain, which is a huge turn off for most pilots. The key here is "less is more." Four flamers provides a decent burn time with 13 doubles and without double basic efficiencies. Anymore flamers I believe is too unwieldy. The second is the lack of visible effects on the enemy. The damage (though decent) isn't as obvious mainly because its spread around the target. Heat damage is also hard to pick up on aside from the obvious shutdown. The disparity between single heat sinks and double heat sinks combined with a dependency on ambient temperature further exacerbates this issue.

In conclusion, I am now even more confident that special abilities and specialization are key in bringing the flamer out of obscurity. This coupled with improved knowledge on how the flamer performs/functions will aid in this ultimate goal.

Thank you for your time and have a nice day.
Ambuscade