FupDup, on 29 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:
For the Flamer discussion, it's confirmed that some kind of new effect is coming for them in February. No specifics given.
EdSteele: 0
Everyone Else: 1
Wait . . . WHAT?!? They're finally getting around to it?!?!
HOLY HELL!!!! I think my heart may have just skipped a beat, or two, or twenty. Maybe . . . just maybe . . . my dearly beloved flamers will rise from the ashes and no longer be utterly crap weapons that I have STILL continued to mount on my mechs
because I refuse to give up on them. One can pray and hope for that. Hell, if it actually comes around and Flamers are worth mounting on a regular basis (even as the knifiest of knife-fighting weapons), then my wallet will finally reopen for PGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, as for what other people have mentioned. Mr. Ed Steele . . . allow me to enlighten you on the Battletech TT rules that you are claiming to cite, but are doing so completely wrong ...
MG's and Flamers do 2 points of damage when used on a mech. Period. They are fully capable of damaging Mechs, Tanks, etc.. If you don't believe me, you can look at the weapon stats on Sarna, or pick up your local copy of
Total Warfare (the current Players Handbook of Battletech).
This whole "anti-infantry weapons only" bit comes from sheer myth. That myth stems from the fact that, in order to balance and compensate for the MG's and Flamer's extremely short knife-fighting range, they were also given a bonus feature of utterly shredding infantry (which for flamers is basically just doing the Heat Damage they do to mechs as bonus physical damage against non-heat-tracking units, like infantry and light vehciles). The "Fluff" logic for this is due to their massive saturation of the target with fire or bullets . . . they're more capable of just showering infantry with punishment rather than the more precisely placed damage of autocannon shells, lasers, and missiles (remember, the missiles are described as much smaller ordinance in size in comparison to the mechs, being more like 3-liter-soda-bottle-sized missiles rather than the Arrow IV Artillery missiles or the massive cruise missiles of naval assets). That's also another reason why inferno munitions for SRM launchers were favored for anti-infantry work, as they create a similar area saturation effect as Flamers, and in gameplay mechanics get the same kind of bonus damage against such units.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, good sir, if you wished to actually balance the weapons based exclusively off of TT, then the AC/2, Flamer, and MG should all be doing the SAME DPS; and the AC/2 does a rather monstrous 2.78 DPS in comparison to the other weapons. However, we already know we're not going to see that, because each weapon needs its place and niche. That draws us to weapon balancing that should look more like this:
- The AC/2 is considered utter junk in TT because of the massive tonnage investment for such light damage . . . the only upside being a distinctly low heat output. In MWO we've ironically traded that very low heat output for a massively higher, and quite much more effective DPS. This makes the AC/2 a long range suppression weapon, even if it still needs some more tuning (personally I say the heat needs to be dropped to about .5 or so).
- The MG's theoretical role for MWO is supposed to be an internal components shredder. When the weapon was 1.0 DPS, it wasn't that bad. However, with its damage nerf it's been utterly wretched in comparison to its prior iteration. It doesn't help, either, that all the MG quirks pretty much went away, in the rebalance, for the few mechs that really boated and relied upon them. Also, the 3.0m cone of fire (which is ironic because Russ can be quoted in the early Town Halls for saying he HATED the concept of CoF as a possible convergence fix) hinders the weapon at anything outside flamer range, as well. A simple removal of CoF would be a nice start to buffing the weapon, and returning its 1.0 DPS would be a great move for making the weapon far more effective. Maybe then we'd see Embers, Arrows, and LCT-1V's actually carrying MG's again, like they're supposed to (based on stock builds).
- The Flamer is supposed to be an enemy heat builder, in MWO and TT. Having a total of over 80k Flamer Damage since I joined MWO (which for a LONG time they only did .4 DPS) and many, many, hours of usage, I can assure you they currently build heat for the wielder far faster than the target in practical function. That's mostly due to the utterly terrible "exponential heat scaling" method that they use, which constantly accelerates your heat generation and -supposedly- that for the target as well. However, that's if you have your weapons on target 100% of the time . . . one break in target connection and their heat buildup acceleration scale resets while yours does not. Also, the 90% enemy heat damage cap is another majorly inhibiting factor, albeit a needed one to prevent trolling by overheating enemies and causing them to die from reactor overheat (not very fun, or fair, if you have zero options for fighting back). First their heat acceleration mechanic needs to be scrapped. Then Flamer DPS needs to be bumped to at least 1.4 (1.0 and they'd just be a MG with heat) while also ensuring that they do at least double the heat damage (per flamer and at a flat additive value) as they generate for the wielder . . . preferably at about .5 HPS for the wielder and 1.0 HPS for the target. They can then start tuning numbers from there until we get a reasonably serviceable weapon system.
7
