366 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

pwnface, on 12 February 2016 - 08:34 PM, said:

This is a computer game and not a board game.

Flamers absolutely do not need to function like they did in table top. In fact a lot of weapons and mechanics don't function the way they do in table top and the game is better for it.

That's ridiculous obviously everything should be a 1-to-1 with tabletop, otherwise this wouldn't be a Battletech game.

[Sereglach]

pwnface, on 12 February 2016 - 08:34 PM, said:

This is a computer game and not a board game.

Flamers absolutely do not need to function like they did in table top. In fact a lot of weapons and mechanics don't function the way they do in table top and the game is better for it.

I'm not saying it needs to function exactly like it does in TT. However, . . .

- I do expect Flamers to do actual physical damage to mechs as well as heat damage. This iteration is just the perpetuation of a terrible "TT myth", where Flamers can't do physical damage, that people have never seemed to grasp the truth of . . . Flamers do, in fact, do physical damage.

- I don't expect to be able to make enemy mechs go critical just from my Flamer usage. However, I expect to be able to reliably manage my own heat generation on the weapon to prevent the Flamer we've always had, where you can and will overheat yourself quicker than the enemy will overheat themselves. These new heat penalties are going to make that even more difficult to manage (minus the potential exploit).

- I do expect them to address a terribly ill-thought mechanic that created an exploit that seems like it's still going to be in effect when this patch hits (and will actually -theoretically- be able to create real problems at this point in time).

- I do not want to see the Flamer as a useless trolling weapon.

- I do expect all weapon systems in the game to be viable combat weapons . . . even if they're not top-tier meta . . . I expect them to be reasonably balanced.

So is that too much to ask when addressing the issues with PGI's "fix" for this weapon system? Leading to my next point . . .

El Bandito, on 12 February 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

Yet another patch where machine guns and LBX are not buffed. Instead we get this.

You should be happy that they didn't "fix" LBX or MG's . . . you may have gotten a fix like the Flamer . . . I can see it now:

- MG's do 0 damage to armor and only damage internal components when armor is gone, while doing 0 structure damage.

- LBX pellets will do .5 damage per pellet to armor, with twice as many pellets and a bigger cone of spread, but will gain even more crit damage . . . but the percentage won't change.

After all . . . they're supposed to be "support" weapons, right? That seems to be the PGI philosophy on this one.

Edited by Sereglach, 12 February 2016 - 08:51 PM.

[Xenon Codex]

My only complaint of this patch: Why can't you fix easy problems from years ago instead of a lot of minor issues that will effect very few players?

Issues like:

1. Hardpoint locations! If I put a PPC in the topmost energy location in the Mechlab, it should stay there! Not get moved to the bottom position when I save the loadout. It's a really simple request, and I've sent more than one support ticket on this over the years with replies like "lots of people have requested this, we are working on it". Just fix it already!

2. Reducing pointless wait times. I'm getting really sick of these and they often make me quit playing due to frustration.

• The super long "Connecting" screen after logging in and waiting for the mechlab to appear. Please reduce this to no more than a couple of seconds. I pay for good internet, it should not take long to sync my account status. At the very least I would really like a technical explanation as why it takes so long to log into the Mechlab. All my mechlab data can be transferred in milliseconds, so why am I waiting 10 or more seconds?
  
• The animation after the map and mode have been selected. Why is the game not loading the map and connecting while this is playing? Can you really not play an animation while loading a map and establishing connections? If so, get rid of the animation and go directly to the load screens. It just adds useless time to our life and does nothing to increase the value of the game. It's neat I admit, but only if it doesn't increase wait times.
  
• After logging in, if the server realizes we are in a game please bypass the Mechlab and let us rejoin the game directly. It wastes so much valuable time waiting for the Mechlab to appear, then clicking "Dismiss" on the banner, then finally clicking "Rejoin". Just make a "Rejoin" button immediately available after logging in. Piece of cake and we rejoined our team 30 seconds faster.
  
• Decrease the timer on the pre-game screen to 30 seconds. If a player hasn't joined by then, they got disconnected or crashed and are not worth 11 other players waiting on them to maybe rejoin. If you improve the rejoin time as suggested above, it will have zero impact on players who had to restart due to a crash.

Presently, at Tier 2 and primarily as a medium mech player, I can find a match in a shorter period of time than it takes start the game after choosing the map and mode. It's not the the matchmaker that is the long pole in the tent, it's the game itself.

[meteorol]

So you will remove the Quickdraw 4G from the game, which was to be expected, given your history of heavy handed knee-jerk balance.

But i didn't really think (well who am i fooling, i knew you would do it) you would really go for a blanket nerf on all IS mechs with zero compensation on most of them. The locust, spider, commando, awesome and urbanmech really needed to be brought back in place again. lol.

Listen, i don't really mind. I timed my CW contract to end this weekend, and i'm sitting on 60 filled mechbays and 250mio cbills, I stopped caring about your massive balance fails long time ago. I'm just switching factions according to your ongoing failures.

Had a nice run with the IS, back to clans i guess.

Next balance pass incoming when the big units all go clan again and CW map changes in favor of clans again. Can't wait to see how long it takes before the two major balance indicators (CW map and guys crying on twitter) will make russ nerfhammer clan mechs again.

[NocturnalBeast]

Sereglach, on 12 February 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

A-frigging-men. I use flamers on a number of my mechs because I desperately want the weapon system to be viable. Sadly, what we're set to receive on Monday is going to be a joke.

I'll laugh in sad irony if they inflict some sort of hot-fix because the Flamers heat damage does turn out to be even remotely effective for long-term engagements (I don't think it will) and makes laser vomit ridiculously unviable; but at the same time prevents the Flamer wielders from doing any substantial damage to any targets while Trolls run around boating Flamers. It'll be a comical mess if something like that happens.

Not a joke, you are getting a flamer which is a large flame thrower that is intended to cook infantry and light vehicles (which Mechs are not). Mechs are hermetically sealed, shielded against radiation, have armor that can withstand VERY high powered lasers / particle weapons / high explosive missiles / VERY large ballistics and such why would you expect a flame thrower to do anything more than melt paint and warm the mech up a bit?

Edited by Ed Steele, 12 February 2016 - 09:53 PM.

[MechWarrior4023212]

Some good stuff in there, Clan neg quirks removed is good, but some of them are a bit empty as you might need all the same pods on.

As long as population is spread out with all the houses and clans CW should be fun.

[Sereglach]

Ed Steele, on 12 February 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

Not a joke, you are getting a flamer which is a large flame thrower that is intended to cook infantry and light vehicles (which Mechs are not). Mechs are hermetically sealed, shielded against radiation, have armor that can withstand VERY high powered lasers, particle weapons, high explosive missiles, VERY large ballistics and such why would you expect a flame thrower to do anything more than melt paint and warm the mech up a bit?

Because they're not your every day napalm fed flamethrower. MWO/Battletech Flame throwers are massive plasma jets that unleash superheated matter at higher temperatures than the Lasers of MWO could ever dream of accomplishing. I'd expect a hot jet of plasma at thousands of degrees to vaporize matter on contact. That's why.

Also, read my other related posts. Just like MGs and AC/2s, Flamers still did 2 points of damage to mechs in TT rules; and according to even the fluff Flamers were perfectly effective against hardened targets. They should be doing some notable damage against mechs . . . it doesn't need to be major damage, but notable nonetheless.

No offense, but your kind of post about this is the exact reason people perpetuate the myth that Flamers and MGs are only supposed to be anti-infantry weapons.

Edited by Sereglach, 12 February 2016 - 10:08 PM.

[akkelemvor]

• Panther PNT-10K: ERPPC Quirk has been changed to a PPC Quirk, so the benefit now applies to both ERPPCs and standard PPCs.

Since when has this been a thing? I am prepared to get "flamed" here but I wasn't aware PPC quirks effected ER-PPC quirks.

[crustydog]

About the DireWolves... once glorious, now just kinda sad.

One of the good changes from the last patch was the thickening up of the IS mechs - maybe not so much the Blackjacks - but the larger ones. This change, in combination with the improved missiles, very much put mechs like the Atlas back into the front and center of the threat matrix.

Atlas's are scary now, not so much for their firepower as for their ability to absorb seriously huge amounts of damage. They are dangerous now, and they should be.

But the poor Dires - mobility nerfed so badly, an elephant would make a better weapon - and they seem to enjoy none of the staying power of our new killer Atlas. Direwolves pack a big punch, sure - but they can't actually aim those weapons anymore. They are rather helpless now - and not very scary at all.

If you are going to make assault mechs big and lumbering, slow and difficult to aim, then you at least better thicken them up so they can actually take a hit. Because they are getting hit, non-stop, and die oh so easily, and there is nothing they can do to stop that. Right now, there is no respect for a Direwolf, and a few other lumbering targets with a similar affliction.

Perhaps your best approach is to thicken up the entire Assault class of mechs - make them all thick beasts that can absorb the punishment they are forced to take. Make them a real danger again - like the Atlas. Personally, I think the structure buffs to the Atlas have worked out very well - I would like all assault mechs to receive similar buffs.

When I think Assault Mech - I think of a mech that can engage in prolonged frontal assault against a fortified defensive position. Like the AT-AT. Yes, you can destroy it, but you really do have to work at it.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Sereglach, on 12 February 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

No offense, but your kind of post about this is the exact reason people perpetuate the myth that Flamers and MGs are only supposed to be anti-infantry weapons.

Not so much a myth as a carryover from the novels. The novels trivialize the flamers and MG's pretty much and THAT colors the perception of the large portion of the player base that's part of the "lore" crowd.

Fact is, the TT descriptions and effects did not always match in the novels and that's why you see such a split on the issue even among the "faithful."

[Y E O N N E]

Well, I was going to buy some MC. I guess I won't, now.

PGI, your method of balance is unfathomable. I am sick of you playing Wheel of Fortune with all of my equipment. Change isn't bad, but your changes are erratic. Irrational. There's no rhyme or rhythm to it and frankly I'm not going to support this game until you standardize your change methods and application.

Toodles.

[NocturnalBeast]

Sereglach, on 12 February 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

Because they're not your every day napalm fed flamethrower. MWO/Battletech Flame throwers are massive plasma jets that unleash superheated matter at higher temperatures than the Lasers of MWO could ever dream of accomplishing. I'd expect a hot jet of plasma at thousands of degrees to vaporize matter on contact. That's why.

Also, read my other related posts. Just like MGs and AC/2s, Flamers still did 2 points of damage to mechs in TT rules; and according to even the fluff Flamers were perfectly effective against hardened targets. They should be doing some notable damage against mechs . . . it doesn't need to be major damage, but notable nonetheless.

No offense, but your kind of post about this is the exact reason people perpetuate the myth that Flamers and MGs are only supposed to be anti-infantry weapons.

Ah, my ignorant friend, here you are, straight from the horse's mouth via Sarna.net:

"Introduced in 2025, the standard Flamer taps into a BattleMech's reactor to produce heat in the form of a plasma release.^[3] 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 weapon usage in a 'Mech is the Firestarter BattleMech."

So I am sorry, but I perpetuate no myth here.

Edited by Ed Steele, 12 February 2016 - 11:43 PM.

[Kreisel]

Awesome to see the Targeting Computers and MASC getting some much needed improvements. Why no love for the Command Consul, which is basically the inner sphere closest equivalent to the Targeting Computers and currently sees just as little use/purpose for the tonnage as they did? My fingers are crossed that you have some other upgrades for the command consul in mind to make it as useful as targeting computers just became but really distinct.

Really glad to see the negative weapon quirks on clan mechs go, thank you for deciding to get rid of those.
Good to see that while generic IS energy range quirks got were restricted to 10% that you choose to keep specific weapon range quirks separate from that change.

I'll withhold judgement about how I feel about the flamer changes until I get a chance to experiment with them in game, on paper it looks a little lackluster due to the still present 90% heat cap, but I understand there are balance issues with being able to keep someone constantly shut down. Depending how fast it delivers 4.5 heat, that could be pretty mean to hot mechs and might make it actually worth while to equip more than one at a time. Do Flamers still do their current effect of preventing heat dissipation on the mech being hit (the same way JJ prevent you from cooling off but don't make you gain heat) in addition to the heat they will now cause? 4.5 heat PLUS losing the ability to dissipate heat is a LOT more brutal than just 4.5 heat.

Overall, looks like a great patch, looking forward to it.

[NocturnalBeast]

Lukoi Banacek, on 12 February 2016 - 10:58 PM, said:

Not so much a myth as a carryover from the novels. The novels trivialize the flamers and MG's pretty much and THAT colors the perception of the large portion of the player base that's part of the "lore" crowd.

Fact is, the TT descriptions and effects did not always match in the novels and that's why you see such a split on the issue even among the "faithful."

Not just the novels, but from BATTLETECH itself and MWO is "A BATTLETECH GAME".

[xe N on]

Ed Steele, on 12 February 2016 - 11:40 PM, said:

Ah, my ignorant friend, here you are, straight from the horse's mouth via Sarna.net:

"Introduced in 2025, the standard Flamer taps into a BattleMech's reactor to produce heat in the form of a plasma release.^[3] 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 weapon usage in a 'Mech is the Firestarter BattleMech."

So I am sorry, but I perpetuate no myth here.

And damage per round is still 2, small laser in BT has 3. The DPS of a small laser in MWO is 1. So the DPS of the flamer should be around 0.7 damage / sec - as it is now.

Range btw. is the same as small laser.

Edited by xe N on, 12 February 2016 - 11:58 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Ed Steele, on 12 February 2016 - 11:45 PM, said:

Not just the novels, but from BATTLETECH itself and MWO is "A BATTLETECH GAME".

Except in Battletech, the table top game, the flamers did 2 pts of damage to other Mechs.

The table top had one interpretation of the flamer, the novels a significantly different one. It's not the playerbase's fault that the haphazard writing styles of people from the novels, the fluff portions of the technical manuals and the actual ingame states don't jibe. Simply a hazard of pulp fiction and space-D&D coming together in the 80's and 90's.

edit: not that I'm a proponent of flamers having the same DPS as lasers...I think that's farsical and frankly short-sighted by PGI.

All tech in this game should have a relevance, but not necessarily enjoy parity. There is a distinct difference between the two that folks often overlook.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 13 February 2016 - 12:01 AM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Lukoi Banacek, on 12 February 2016 - 11:59 PM, said:

Except in Battletech, the table top game, the flamers did 2 pts of damage to other Mechs.

The table top had one interpretation of the flamer, the novels a significantly different one. It's not the playerbase's fault that the haphazard writing styles of people from the novels, the fluff portions of the technical manuals and the actual ingame states don't jibe. Simply a hazard of pulp fiction and space-D&D coming together in the 80's and 90's.

edit: not that I'm a proponent of flamers having the same DPS as lasers...I think that's farsical and frankly short-sighted by PGI.

All tech in this game should have a relevance, but not necessarily enjoy parity. There is a distinct difference between the two that folks often overlook.

Yes, but two points per shot in TT is two points over 10 seconds in real time. And I have said before the flamer is meant to be a situational support weapon.

[SockSlayer]

See latest post for current opinion, page 15 or 16.

Edited by Independence MK2, 16 February 2016 - 02:40 PM.

[pwnface]

I have no problem with flamers doing negligible damage as long as their CC ability compensated for it.

Alternatively, I'm okay with higher DPS and less CC utility also.

I just want to see flamers be viable but not game breaking.

[Beaching Betty]

So many people crying.

Do whatever you want PGI, all I care is about playing the game and having fun with it.