30 replies to this topic

[Zen555]

Does anyone have anyone have anything positive to say about flamers (other than them not being mandatory)?

I did a search and all I could find was complaints, although someone said they might damage more than one enemy at a time, which multiplies their nearly 0 damage by a small factor.

I saw a 9 flamer hunchie get the drop on a wounded mech; several agonizing minutes later the hunchie was dead. The enemy had to take it easy on the lasers but never actually shut down, nor stopped firing entirely. The hunchie never did do significant damage.

Seriously? 9 tons of weaponry + point blank range restriction should equal massive damage/crits/something, right?

For a 1 ton weapon it really doesn't do much besides look pretty, does it? Compare it to 9 small pulse lasers, also 9 tons, and it's a no-brainer: small pulse have longer range and do far more damage.

Any thoughts? Are flamers purely cosmetic?

[Night Thastus]

Well...
This is a sensitive issue.

Flamers should have a very, very high crit-chance and raise the heat of an enemy mech significantly.
However, no-one uses them because they're an incredibly niche weapon that would only help you in very certain circumstances, much like MG's.

If you have a mech with decent weaponry and you're fighting against one that has no armor on a specific component, you can, in theory, fire that flamer at that component if you get right in their face and it'll essentially crit whatever's inside of it. Flamers can also blind a pilot if done well (it's happened to me, sadly) and cause extremely hot mechs to be useless due to heat. However, this is rarely done and even more rarely done sucessfully. MG's are generally considered better for this, as they have a much higher range (120m vs 90) and generate no heat, unlike the exponential (why the **** is that even a thing?) heat that flamers make.

[Ialdabaoth]

It would be nice if the exponential heat effect of Flamers was only applied to the target, not the attacker.

[Ryoken]

Well maybe the question should be the other way. Should Flamers and MGs even be effective against mechs?

To me they should not be effective on mechs as they are anti Soft-Target weapons.

So maybe with AI tanks and Infantry those niche weapons might find their place.

(There is a reason no sane soldier attacks even tanks with MG or Flamethrower. Now mechs are even harder/heatresistant targets)

[Thunder Child]

What a lot of people seem to forget, is that the Machine Guns and Flamers mounted on Battlemechs are Battlemech Grade weapons.

We're not talking about a portable Flamethrower that some poor sap has strapped to his back, and is now attempting to get close enough to use it.
We're talking Plasma vented straight from the Fusion Reactor. Heat values approaching the surface temp of the sun, kind of thing. Yes, they were used against infantry, due to the effectiveness of it. But so were small lasers, and they are combat viable in MWO, so why not make Flamers a similar DPS and heat level, but at a continuous rate, rather than burst, recharge, burst.

As for Machine Guns. If I remember correctly, the Machine Gun is actually (on average) a 20mm cannon. It is differentiated from the Auto-cannons, because it is a belt fed continuous stream of bullets, instead of a magazine or cassette fed autoloader. Also, in TT, Machine Guns had the same DPS as A/C 2s. Why not carry that over too. Maybe not quite to the same level, but perhaps buff the DPS to 2, and halve the ammo count.

[Marvyn Dodgers]

Moving to GD

[Shatara]

Ryoken, on 02 April 2015 - 03:49 AM, said:

Well maybe the question should be the other way. Should Flamers and MGs even be effective against mechs?

To me they should not be effective on mechs as they are anti Soft-Target weapons.

So maybe with AI tanks and Infantry those niche weapons might find their place.

(There is a reason no sane soldier attacks even tanks with MG or Flamethrower. Now mechs are even harder/heatresistant targets)

This 'muh realizms' argument falls apart on several levels.

First, this is Battletech, a world where one Space Kalashnikov does 0.52 damage over a ten-second turn, and a bunch of guys with table legs and carbon-reinforced fingernails can hypothetically kill a Battlemech.

Second, these are half- to full-ton weapons. That's 500-1000kg. For comparison the GAU-8 Avenger, the biggest real weapon you could modestly describe as a 'machine gun', weighs in at all of 281kg.

Third, while you would not fight a tank with a machine gun...this was not always the case. It wasn't uncommon in the early months of WWII to have tanks whose main anti-armor weapon was a 12.7-20mm machine gun, and Panthers were dying to 14.5mm rifles through the whole war. As for flamethrowers...tanks aren't actually that fond of being doused in liquid fire.

Fourth, these are 90-120m weapons, in a game that doesn't have 'soft targets'. Sure, there may be tanks at some point, but Battletech tanks are covered in the same stuff that Battlemechs are. If they don't have close-combat DPS, they're not going to be particularly useful.

[FupDup]

Shatara, on 02 April 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

This 'muh realizms' argument falls apart on several levels.

First, this is Battletech, a world where one Space Kalashnikov does 0.52 damage over a ten-second turn, and a bunch of guys with table legs and carbon-reinforced fingernails can hypothetically kill a Battlemech.

Second, these are half- to full-ton weapons. That's 500-1000kg. For comparison the GAU-8 Avenger, the biggest real weapon you could modestly describe as a 'machine gun', weighs in at all of 281kg.

Third, while you would not fight a tank with a machine gun...this was not always the case. It wasn't uncommon in the early months of WWII to have tanks whose main anti-armor weapon was a 12.7-20mm machine gun, and Panthers were dying to 14.5mm rifles through the whole war. As for flamethrowers...tanks aren't actually that fond of being doused in liquid fire.

Fourth, these are 90-120m weapons, in a game that doesn't have 'soft targets'. Sure, there may be tanks at some point, but Battletech tanks are covered in the same stuff that Battlemechs are. If they don't have close-combat DPS, they're not going to be particularly useful.

I have an additional criticism against the "anti infantry" crowd.


With the way MWO is set up, having more than a single MG or a single Flamer wouldn't be any stronger against infantry than many MGs or many Flamers.

If you hit an infantry guy with these big MGs or Flamers, he would die instantly. If he didn't die in one hit from an MG or Flamer, then those weapons wouldn't be very good against infantry now would they?

If you used two MGs or Flamers, he would still die instantly...but you'd spend twice as much tonnage. It would be a waste. It would be useless to every use multiple MGs or multiple Flamers because 1 MG would kill infantry just as fast as 10 MGs.

Piranhas came stock with 12 MGs. The vast majority of mechs with stock MGs had at least 2. The list goes on. Mechs like the Firestarter came stock with 4 Flamers, because Tabletop anti-infantry guns were more effective when you carried multiples. This was due to the random hit system as well as the fact that TT could arbitrarily set the damage you dealt to infantry. We can't do that here.

There needs to be a reason to use more than 1 MG or 1 Flamer on a build. With the ability to aim, and the inability to make weapons fire just randomly bounce off of infantry and deal no damage, there would be absolutely zero reason to ever use multiples of MGs or Flamers in MWO. Using 1 would be just as effective as 20, but with less tonnage.

MGs and Flamers absolutely must, full-stop, have a usage against mechs that gives a viable reason to equip more than 1. Maybe Flamers could focus on heat damage rather than pure damage, but they must somehow pose a threat to enemy giant robots. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.



Also, in terms of that guy talking about "soft targets..."

Mechs don't use modern day tank armor, so people who make that comparison are dipshits by default. Our BT Battlemechs use ablative armor. Ablative armor is specifically designed to explode outwards when hit by weapons fire, which deflects force away from the unit carrying it. This means that ablative armor can be chipped off by certain attacks that might normally make dents in conventional tank armor. At the same time, attacks with huge damage like a Gauss Rifle are less likely to instagib the unit.

Our real-life armor is mostly all-or-nothing. A shot either bounces off harmlessly, or it penetrates and hopelessly slaughters everyone inside and annihilates the vehicle. Ablative armor is much more resistant to high-powered single shots, but it is also more vulnerable to "death by a thousand papercuts."

Edited by FupDup, 02 April 2015 - 06:46 PM.

[Clint Steel]

Ialdabaoth, on 01 April 2015 - 10:38 PM, said:

It would be nice if the exponential heat effect of Flamers was only applied to the target, not the attacker.

Ya, they shouldn't create heat on the mech using them, but they do not have an ammo currently, so there would be no restriction to spamming them constantly.

I would suggest that the make them require fuel, but then remove the heat they cause the user. By giving them ammo, it would also let you make them more powerful. In their current state you wouldn't want them to be able to shut a mech down due to heat, because you could indefinetly keep the fire on the mech, but if using them expend ammo, you could allow them to shut a mech down, or cause overheat damage.

[A Large Infant]

FupDup, on 02 April 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

I have an additional criticism against the "anti infantry" crowd.


With the way MWO is set up, having more than a single MG or a single Flamer wouldn't be any stronger against infantry than many MGs or many Flamers.

If you hit an infantry guy with these big MGs or Flamers, he would die instantly. If he didn't die in one hit from an MG or Flamer, then those weapons wouldn't be very good against infantry now would they?

If you used two MGs or Flamers, he would still die instantly...but you'd spend twice as much tonnage. It would be a waste. It would be useless to every use multiple MGs or multiple Flamers because 1 MG would kill infantry just as fast as 10 MGs.

Piranhas came stock with 12 MGs. The vast majority of mechs with stock MGs had at least 2. The list goes on. Mechs like the Firestarter came stock with 4 Flamers, because Tabletop anti-infantry guns were more effective when you carried multiples. This was due to the random hit system as well as the fact that TT could arbitrarily set the damage you dealt to infantry. We can't do that here.

There needs to be a reason to use more than 1 MG or 1 Flamer on a build. With the ability to aim, and the inability to make weapons fire just randomly bounce off of infantry and deal no damage, there would be absolutely zero reason to ever use multiples of MGs or Flamers in MWO. Using 1 would be just as effective as 20, but with less tonnage.

MGs and Flamers absolutely must, full-stop, have a usage against mechs that gives a viable reason to equip more than 1. Maybe Flamers could focus on heat damage rather than pure damage, but they must somehow pose a threat to enemy giant robots. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.



Also, in terms of that guy talking about "soft targets..."

Mechs don't use modern day tank armor, so people who make that comparison are dipshits by default. Our BT Battlemechs use ablative armor. Ablative armor is specifically designed to explode outwards when hit by weapons fire, which deflects force away from the unit carrying it. This means that ablative armor can be chipped off by certain attacks that might normally make dents in conventional tank armor. At the same time, attacks with huge damage like a Gauss Rifle are less likely to instagib the unit.

Our real-life armor is mostly all-or-nothing. A shot either bounces off harmlessly, or it penetrates and hopelessly slaughters everyone inside and annihilates the vehicle. Ablative armor is much more resistant to high-powered single shots, but it is also more vulnerable to "death by a thousand papercuts."

Explosive reactive armor is nothing new, and dare I say more tanks field ERA than go without it nowadays. But we quibble over minutia with this point as Battlemech armor is still sufficiently different from current armor technology. For instance, supposedly the reason an A/C 20 staggers a mech receiving the blow is the sudden loss of several tons of armor and the gyro trying to compensate.

[zagibu]

Since we'll probably never get infantry or other lightly armored targets, they should simply buff them so they become viable again. It would be nice to have a ballistic option on lights that actually does something. And I never understood the reason they made the flamer add more heat to yourself than to your target anyway, what the hell is up with that?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Flamers don't really do much currently. I suppose if there was one positive, it's that they can blind an attacker. That still really isn't that worth it.

Everyone agrees it needs help, but few can really agree on how and PGI seems at a loss as well.

[kapusta11]

Just buff them to deal 2 dps, that's not much for inaccurate weapon with 90m range that requires you to face your opponent the entire time.

[Gamuray]

@kapusta11

2 dps + nova. 24 dps. Thank you for making my flamers nova melt my opponents in seconds ?

I would generally agree that flamers should essentially be energy type machine guns. However one things is certain. If you can't shut the enemy down via heat transfer, you shouldn't be able to shut yourself down. That's all there is to it. There shouldn't be exponential heat with them either (since when were they EVER effective enough to warrant this?) Besides, you're expelling reactor heated plasma, you are getting rid of hot material. I would say that should cool you off if anything, unless the transfer "tubes" aren't well insulated, which would likely put you in insta-shutdown if they weren't...

[Ambuscade]

New thread and my favorite topic: Flamers.

As of current PGI is currently working on removing the blind on flamers. The reasoning being it "stun locks" players. Furthermore, once this issue is resolved the flamer will supposedly be buffed (heat transfer, little damage, and critical hit attributes). If your curious as to my source I found this on a NGNG podcast: Mechs, Devs, and Beer #17: Paul Inouye. The discussion turns to flamers at about the 10 to 11 min mark if I remember correctly.

Also, let me debunk a myth. Flamers cannot shut an enemy mech down. Flamers have a heat cap on enemy mechs which prevents this (again to avoid stun locking). That cap is 90%.

Personal opinion: Low damage, low heat, high heat transfer, impressive crit seeking. That's it in a nutshell.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

[Alistair Winter]

Ambuscade, on 03 April 2015 - 05:17 AM, said:

As of current PGI is currently working on removing the blind on flamers. The reasoning being it "stun locks" players. Furthermore, once this issue is resolved the flamer will supposedly be buffed (heat transfer, little damage, and critical hit attributes). If your curious as to my source I found this on a NGNG podcast: Mechs, Devs, and Beer #17: Paul Inouye. The discussion turns to flamers at about the 10 to 11 min mark if I remember correctly.

Why does PGI keep fixing imaginary problems? This goes back to Paul Inouye nerfing pulse lasers at a time NOBODY was using them anyway. There's an annoyingly long list of things that have been "fixed" that I have basically never seen anyone complain about.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 03 April 2015 - 05:28 AM.

[Ambuscade]

@Alistar Winter - I have no idea why they think the blind is a stun lock.

When blinded by flamers you can still:

• Fire your weapons
  
• Move will full control
  
• Use chat/voip to signal assistance
  
• Use mini-map for navigation/direction
  
• Use R and the red target box to determine opponents position
  
• Use paperdoll to determine accuracy of your return fire

Not much of a stun lock if you ask me. I can think of one possible cause though. They are preemptively nerfing the flamer before giving it a substantial buff (to heat transfer mostly, as that limits your ability to return fire). But, that's just pure speculation on my part.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

[EgoSlayer]

Ambuscade, on 03 April 2015 - 05:48 AM, said:

@Alistar Winter - I have no idea why they think the blind is a stun lock.

When blinded by flamers you can still:

• Fire your weapons
  
• Move will full control
  
• Use chat/voip to signal assistance
  
• Use mini-map for navigation/direction
  
• Use R and the red target box to determine opponents position
  
• Use paperdoll to determine accuracy of your return fire

Not much of a stun lock if you ask me. I can think of one possible cause though. They are preemptively nerfing the flamer before giving it a substantial buff (to heat transfer mostly, as that limits your ability to return fire). But, that's just pure speculation on my part.


Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

It isn't the blinding that is a stun lock, it's the heat generation on the target that would be a stun lock. In MWO Flamers won't put an enemy above a set level on their heat scale, I think 80%. If flamers could overheat an enemy mech in MWO like they can in TT they would be a much more powerful weapon because a shut down mech is usually a soon to be dead one.

[Mcgral18]

Gamuray, on 03 April 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

@kapusta11

2 dps + nova. 24 dps. Thank you for making my flamers nova melt my opponents in seconds ?

On a robot with mediocre speed, terrible hitboxes and a 90M MAXIMUM range?

Sounds fair to me.

[Ambuscade]

@EgoSlayer - That cap you speak of is already in place. To my knowledge its at 90% and has been that way for some time. I am by no means supporting the removal of the cap. I understand the desire to remove stun locking entirely from the game. I just want a weapon system worth the tonnage.

@Mcgral - Nova boating flamers will always have to deal with the high and short range plus integral chassis weaknesses no matter the flamer implementation. The key as I like to say for flamers is giving them enough reward to justify their risk.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade