366 replies to this topic

[derFiend]

It´s funny to use the word "balance" if there is a existing Problem with 2 or 3 Mechs, and in the result your are total nerving ALL IS Energy Mechs... and go back to "specific weapon balance" isn´t a good option, after you really made it good to go away from fixed loadouts predicted by the mechs quirks...

I really don´t understand this... is it so hard to fix this quirks with problematic mechs, or the weapon itself, that you have to do this over all? Or it is more a question to be to lazy to think about in detail?

Beside of this, the patch is a good work, fix a lot of long existing problems and so on...

[Clideb50]

Alexander Garden, on 12 February 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

Heat cap on the targeted 'Mech is still 90%.

Throwing the heat level on a clan 'mech up to 90% I think will still be something. They don't have much for heat tolerance. I might try a Firestarter to run a mix of flamers, and small or med lasers.

Edited by Clideb50, 13 February 2016 - 03:26 AM.

[Catra Lanis]

From what I understand, they buffed some of the clan mechs and nerfed a lot of the IS ones. If they percieved a gap (not that I see it) wouldn't it have been enough with one of the alternatives, at least to start with?

Oh well, I guess I'll just wait to see which mech is best regardless of what I want to play. Is this what PGI wants? I don't like that we have a smorgosbord of mechs with more coming but only a dozen or so are used because otherwise you get stomped.

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 February 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

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

Exactly. I still want hex bases for all the mechs, too. Screw inverse kinetics; hex bases!

Ed Steele, on 13 February 2016 - 12:19 AM, said:

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.

All MWO weapons do way more damage than TT weapons. See: Tabletop AC2? 2 damage per 10 seconds as well. AC5? 5 damage per 10 seconds.

I don't think your example was making the point you thought it was making.

[Vashramire]

I have to wonder why so many people lose it over a weapon with a max range of 90m. Flamers will continue to be a niche weapon even after this adjustment. Is it worth getting in close to overheat a mech (no matter how many flamers you have on it) or swapping it for a laser that actually aids you in killing them at longer ranges? Because you know, the 3 mechs standing behind them are just going to stand there and let you do it. Flamers need face time and extreme close range to function. Unless you are a light and want it for lulz or something close range like an AC20/srm6 Atlas they will not be super effective. Best case scenario is taking them on a light and picking off stragglers or dueling. Still it's likely that even a small laser will be far more practical.

[D V Devnull]

@Alexander Garden -- I saw the Patch Notes, but I have to ask... Will we ever see a patch for the In-Game Chat System, even if only on the Post-Death Spectator Cams??? Re-typing messages really causes havoc when people want/need to chat.

~D. V. "getting a real headache from having to retype an endless number of messages" Devnull




(p.s.: Any early info on the next Weekend Event or other such to issue MC rewards? I'm thinking then it would be possible for some to relax and recharge their bodies for that one Critical Event, instead of trying to push it too hard on a bundle of others. Us poor F2P'ers have to scrape by on what little MC we can earn, we really appreciate when we can get some MC, and if there isn't any more coming then that would put us under.)

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Why is IS Masc better than Clan Masc? (at Level1)

• Clan MASC MK I
• Turn rate increased to 40% (from 25%).


Inner Sphere MASC MK I
• Turn rate increased to 50% (from 25%).

Edited by Kinski Orlawisch, 13 February 2016 - 05:58 AM.

[Desintegrator]

Hey, the Blackjack structure quirks were just and fine and equal to an Atlas !

So, why do you decrease it ??

You just boosted it a few weeks ago. Should we no wait for 4 weeks to get the old values ?

[derFiend]

Blackjack structure quirks really was over the top, and the new structures are really ok.
But i still wonder why only Blackjack get this quirks, while a lot of other Medium Mechs at the same weight area (vindicator!) don´t get one, and also don´t get good other quirks...

It alway look like PGI only take attention for one of this Mechs, and guess it´s ok only to use one of them...

[RighteousFury]

Vindicators need something else to be fixed, not just some structure here and there or some minor % buffs...

What they really need is a slight increase in hardpoints (something like another ST SRM 6 tube mount or so and maybe +1-2 energy each) and engine cap by 20 or 30 or so engine size. Maybe also a resize (smaller) then they wouldnt be terrible really.

Because if you just slap on the massive quirks they would need, it could be abused again like we have seen so often so far. A couple of more options on hardpoints and engine choice would help much more.

[Vashramire]

Kinski Orlawisch, on 13 February 2016 - 05:56 AM, said:

Why is IS Masc better than Clan Masc? (at Level1)

• Clan MASC MK I
• Turn rate increased to 40% (from 25%).


Inner Sphere MASC MK I
• Turn rate increased to 50% (from 25%).

I'm not sure it's really something to compare since clans don't have a 20t mech. Currently IS MASC MK 1 is only for 20t mechs. Since the smallest clan available if they put a MASC on it would be the Mist Lynx, it should be compared to the IS MK II which has slightly higher speed and turn rate but lower accel/decel and is heavier and takes more space. Even though IS only has 1 mech that can use it right now, if you are comparing them clans make bank more on tonnage and slots rather than raw stats in regards to MASC.

Currently IS vs Clan:

• MK I - 20t mechs 1 slot/1 ton vs 20t-25t mechs 1 slot/1 ton
  
• MK II - 25t-40t mechs 2 slot/2 tons vs 30t-50t mechs 2 slot/2 tons
  
• MK III - 45t-60t mechs 3 slot/3 tons vs 55t-75t mechs 3 slot/3 tons
  
• MK IV - 65t-80t mechs 4 slot/4 tons vs 80t-100t mechs 4 slot/4 tons
  
• MK V - 85t-100 mechs 5 slot/5 tons (IS only)

Even if they did allow MASC on some IS lights I think the weight and size issue would make them see limited use even with the marginal stats boost over clans especially with 25t and below. That's just my opinion though and maybe I'll be proved wrong.

[Tester128]

so quickdraw had its 5 minutes in the spotlight and could be sold back to oblivion now.
pity about top dog, its only redeeming quirk was 25% energy range, pity i cant get an mc refund on it.

[SockSlayer]

See latest post to see my current opinion on flamers, I think most players after trying them, will see that there is just one more thing they need...150m max range. I was actually very surprised at their helpfulness.

Edited by Independence MK2, 16 February 2016 - 02:37 PM.

[Sereglach]

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.

Ah, and with your narcissism you failed to look at the damage table on the right, as others pointed out. The weapon system still does 2 points of damage. The AC/2 is also considered "negligible" damage per shot to a mech, but it is still effective. So you're still perpetuating the myth that they do zero damage to mechs. If you want to quote Sarna, you should also look at the weapon damage table on the right of the page, where the statistical information is shown.

xe N on, on 12 February 2016 - 11:51 PM, said:

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.

Exactly. Thank you, good sir, for pointing this out.

[Sereglach]

pwnface, on 13 February 2016 - 12:50 AM, said:

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.

And the problem that we're going to run into with this is that the CC ability that they have is not going to be capable of a functional and viable weapon system. It's going to create one of two situations:

1. Both the Flamer wielder and the target will both be at heat levels where they're incapable of firing weapons, and no one will accomplish anything productive damage wise.

2. Considering it looks like PGI still hasn't addressed their own exploit built into the terrible "heat acceleration mechanic" you're going to have people running around with Flamers on macros trolling the living daylights out of people.

Neither make this a viable or balanced weapon system.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Ed Steele, on 13 February 2016 - 12:19 AM, said:

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.

As others have noted ALL of the weapons do their damage over 10s so your example is moot. In apples to apples comparison, flamers do not do the commensurate damage of their TT origin as the other weapons by and large do. That's why there are advocates for flamers getting actual damage. I'm not one of them, but their argument is sound. Your math isn't, hence the pushback.

There are other good reasons for flamers to have a different role and not the same damage, as has been pointed out in the past, but pure math comparisons are not it.

[Sereglach]

Vashramire, on 13 February 2016 - 04:48 AM, said:

I have to wonder why so many people lose it over a weapon with a max range of 90m. Flamers will continue to be a niche weapon even after this adjustment. Is it worth getting in close to overheat a mech (no matter how many flamers you have on it) or swapping it for a laser that actually aids you in killing them at longer ranges? Because you know, the 3 mechs standing behind them are just going to stand there and let you do it. Flamers need face time and extreme close range to function. Unless you are a light and want it for lulz or something close range like an AC20/srm6 Atlas they will not be super effective. Best case scenario is taking them on a light and picking off stragglers or dueling. Still it's likely that even a small laser will be far more practical.

The reason is quite simple. People just want all weapons in the game to be viable instead of just having one set of "weapons meta" that's doing to dominate 90% of the mechs you see on the battlefield. Additionally, for me, personally, it's because the Flamer is my favorite weapon to use in the Battletech universe.

Wintersdark, on 13 February 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

All MWO weapons do way more damage than TT weapons. See: Tabletop AC2? 2 damage per 10 seconds as well. AC5? 5 damage per 10 seconds.

I don't think your example was making the point you thought it was making.

Amen, good sir, a-frigging-men. All weapons should be viable in the game. They don't need to be godly monsters, but they should be viable.

This set of Flamer changes makes anything but a truly viable weapon system.

Independence MK2, on 13 February 2016 - 08:05 AM, said:

@pwnface, I remember in MW4, that flamers had a longer cooldown, but that was literally the only down side. They had 150m range, 1 damage, and was perfect for one on one battles, but against more enemy mechs, the flamer was still underpowered even then, what they have chosen to do with the flamer means that they might as well just take it out of the game....

@Alexander Garden, you said that "The Flamerer Flamee Flamesizer Flamer-using 'Mech does not posses the 90% Cap on Heat levels from Flamer use. The Flamerist can still overheat." That limit would ok if the damage was still going to be 0.7, if range was better, and if it had better overheat ability, but not when damage is only 0.1, and not when you will now overheat yourself too quickly.

I had really hoped this update was a flamer buff, but 3 of the 4 things being done to it are nerfs. I agree that flamers aren't known for high damage, but 0.1 damage for a weapon that weighs a ton is laughable, and now the players mech will overheat considerably quicker, on top of losing the blinding effect of the weapon, which actually came handy in messing up the enemy mechs vision.

Short story, this isn't going to work, and if you play with flamers, you will see my point, so I propose these alternate changes:

-nerf damage to 0.5 instead of 0.1 as I do think the flamer should be less damaging, but not the way ya'll are doing it.
-still increase heat per second dealt to enemy mech but to 2 from 0, not 4.5 from 0.
-give the flamer 150m max range, optimal would remain same. Really should do this because IS Energy quirks will soon be gone, and the mech loadouts I've tried, none have worked until I made the 'Long Flame', which is a locust with a 50% energy range quirk(plus 150m was mw4 range).
-make no change to the overheating of your own mech when using flamers, it was bad enough before, and other players will (have) backed me on this.
-still remove blinding effect, in previous games like MW4, it was noticeably less blinding.

Make all the alternative proposed changes, then you have a flamer people actually want to use, and judging from my previous poll on 'flamers', there are people who want the alternate changes I have suggested here.
This is my last post on the subject, make good on those flamers.

Perfectly put, good sir. While I personally think the damage should be closer to a whopping 1 DPS (still a little less than a Small Laser), you hit everything spot on. The range also wouldn't need to be increased all that much if the damage was a little higher, too . . . which is another reason for the 1 DPS.

Otherwise, once the enemy mech is at 90% heat, your flamer fire is useless . . . but you don't really know it's useless because you can't see that the enemy is sitting at 90% heat. At the same token, as stated before, you're just going to lead to a situation where the enemy mech is sitting at 90% heat and the Flamer wielder is going to be overheating themselves or, worse, blowing themselves up if they override for even a mere moment.

I see this Flamer "fix" being a horrible flop . . . and I could see it being much worse if PGI didn't fix the old Flamer exploit about chain firing small clusters of Flamers. The trolls will probably love this change . . . even more so if they have the ability to put macros to use.

[Svarn Lornon]

I actually agreed that the range meta on IS got out of hand, but this now? I'd say all the clan fanboys can rest assured now that Russ is not an IS lover who doesn't care for the clans.

[Sereglach]

RighteousFury, on 13 February 2016 - 06:29 AM, said:

Vindicators need something else to be fixed, not just some structure here and there or some minor % buffs...

What they really need is a slight increase in hardpoints (something like another ST SRM 6 tube mount or so and maybe +1-2 energy each) and engine cap by 20 or 30 or so engine size. Maybe also a resize (smaller) then they wouldnt be terrible really.

Because if you just slap on the massive quirks they would need, it could be abused again like we have seen so often so far. A couple of more options on hardpoints and engine choice would help much more.

Couldn't agree more. Personally, I think a lot of mechs could benefit from some more hardpoints. Locust 1V and 3V (2 more ballistics in each would work), Spider 5V (could put one energy hardpoints in each side torso and double its firepower), and so many more.

PGI was very picky about hardpoint values for quite a while, and then suddenly they started to have rather stark hardpoint inflation. While I think it began around the time of Project Phoenix (because a stock 7E thunderbolt was pretty scary, at the time), I think the kicker was the backlash that came from the concept of the Firestarters all having 7-8 hardpoints without any inflation. Suddenly everything needed to "compete" with that by being held to that new bar or standard of hardpoints.

It creates a sad irony of sorts, because while most battlemechs are receiving the hardpoint inflation, now, to have around 6-8 hardpoints (or more for some heavies/assaults), that is one of the biggest limitations on some of the worst performing Clan mechs . . . a lack of hardpoints among omnipods.

Edited by Sereglach, 13 February 2016 - 09:49 AM.

[Redshirt enraged]

Guess i can live with most of the changes.

I think we will see alot of Flamers after the patch (for science).

The increased mobility quirks on the Oxide are just perverse and a wrong decision imo.

Edited by Redshirt enraged, 13 February 2016 - 11:26 AM.