366 replies to this topic

[pwnface]

Tahawus, on 12 February 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Except for the 4.75 seconds the flamerist gets before the heat starts applying to them. Use short bursts not a tighle for flamrrs, and the could be almost heat free.

Currently flamers generate heat on the mech using them immediately. The patch notes say they don't generate heat for the first 6.25 seconds which is incorrect. So you can see how all of this is very confusing for players who are trying to figure out what is what...

[Cy Mitchell]

All these complainers about Flamers: do you really want the new Meta to be 4-5 Flamer equipped Mechs running around locking down ever Mech so that a team mate can then walk up and shoot it? How boring. As it is, a Mech at 90% heat is going to be able to fire two lasers once before it either shuts down or has to hit over-ride. Next shot he shuts down anyway.

Well, I guess that will curtail laser usage and encourage ballistics.

Maybe, we chould wait to see how Flamers actually work post patch before making 8-10 post complaining that they won't work.

[KodiakGW]

LordBacon, on 12 February 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

its sad, it would have been actually better to add negative quirks to the IS mechs with an energy range of >10%, for example take the cicada x-5 (which will be useless after this patch btw) it has +35% energy range just add a negative quirk: -25% ERLL Range, that would have been fine but this is like destroying every mech with a range quirk on it leaving it worthless because they get nothing in return for the loss of range.

as i said, its sad.

Yep, CDA-X5 and 2C both lost range, with nothing to offset loss.

As well as the Grid Iron, hurting it more since the double gauss nerf to it (quirk and general gauss cool down increase). At least before I could run 2LL and AC10 effectively.

Plus, again no love for the Urbie.

None of these mechs were meta even when they had the "über" quirks and before skill tree change. Still need to see end result of their other changes, but all I can say right now is...

http://youtu.be/84zY33QZO5o

[Wildstreak]

Don't think TC boosts will encourage use above TC1.

Flamers, more heat on target, more heat for you, less damage.

MASC changes mean faster movement and less recharge time. Shadow Cat is a better Heavy Scout, Executioner will be very nimble, Wolverine-7D faster Striker, Kodiak Hero eww, we need the Wolverine-7M.

Somce Clan Mechs got tougher and better able to handle Energy Weapons. Mad Dog got buffed big time. Timber RT widely use got penalties, LT less so, seems PGI wants to challenge players to choose between A or S LT.

A few Highlander improvements.

What was wrong with the Steiner pattern? Never saw one on my Crabs.

[pwnface]

Rampage, on 12 February 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

All these complainers about Flamers: do you really want the new Meta to be 4-5 Flamer equipped Mechs running around locking down ever Mech so that a team mate can then walk up and shoot it? How boring. As it is, a Mech at 90% heat is going to be able to fire two lasers once before it either shuts down or has to hit over-ride. Next shot he shuts down anyway.

Well, I guess that will curtail laser usage and encourage ballistics.

Maybe, we chould wait to see how Flamers actually work post patch before making 8-10 post complaining that they won't work.

You think lights actually running flamers is going to be more boring than what we have now? Flamers are literally unused currently, I'd welcome them as a viable choice any day.

[Pariah Devalis]

Love the patch preview notes, but... Seriously? No new and improved quirks for the SHC and EXE? Yes, I know MASC looks good now. It does. And being maneuverable is important. However, unless you can actually use that maneuverability to leverage some respectable firepower then there is little point. No burn duration quirks for the Shadow Cat (which could be avoided by simply inflating the E hardpoints a teensy smidge), and no structure quirks for the EXE. :\

[Sereglach]

pwnface, on 12 February 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

Currently flamers generate heat on the mech using them immediately. The patch notes say they don't generate heat for the first 6.25 seconds which is incorrect. So you can see how all of this is very confusing for players who are trying to figure out what is what...

Exactly one of the problems that I have with this so-called "fix". PGI doesn't even seem to understand the functionality of their own weapon system; and yet they're claiming that they have this great idea for how to make the weapon functional. At the same time, those of use who understand the weapon system and/or have STILL been using it (despite its horrid condition) are at a loss for this terrible iteration of a fix or balancing attempt . . . especially if their own nebulous and nonsensical "acceleration"/"exponential scaling" heat buildup system for the wielder.

Rampage, on 12 February 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

All these complainers about Flamers: do you really want the new Meta to be 4-5 Flamer equipped Mechs running around locking down ever Mech so that a team mate can then walk up and shoot it? How boring. As it is, a Mech at 90% heat is going to be able to fire two lasers once before it either shuts down or has to hit over-ride. Next shot he shuts down anyway.

Well, I guess that will curtail laser usage and encourage ballistics.

Maybe, we chould wait to see how Flamers actually work post patch before making 8-10 post complaining that they won't work.

The sad part here is that those of us who've still been using flamers, any at all, can already see how terrible this is going to be for the weapon system. While I've calmed down some from my first post, I'm still extremely irate about this whole debacle. It's going to cause a world of problems that they've yet to even touch or consider in this lackadaisical approach to "fixing" the weapon. Here's what we're going to have:

1. Boat flamers, get enemy to 90% heat in mere moments, but at the same time overheat yourself in the process. No one will then be firing any weapons (except machine guns).

2. Attempt to alternate weapon systems. While your enemy will have opportunities to cool down, when you're not firing flamers, you'll still overheat yourself in attempts to keep the enemy's heat levels at oppressive levels. In the end they'll be able to put more damage on you then you'll be able to put on them (same with how it currently is).

3. PGI is claiming that Flamers don't cause heat for the shooter right away, but they do (seriously go equip them and test them if you don't believe me). Even if they may have a delay (which is currently not visible on live servers) with only one equipped, I assure you that "delay" is also affected by the exponential heat scaling/acceleration mechanic that they possess. Therefore, using more than one flamer is going to exacerbate issues #1 and #2 even more so.

4. Utterly neutering (basically removing with a whopping .1 DPS) the damage value from the weapon leaves it in an even less desirable state of use, and also perpetuates an utterly bogus TT myth that Flamers don't do damage to mechs . . . seriously . . . people need to go pick up a Battletech Rulebook. The weapon should have some reasonable damage dealing utility to keep them reasonably competitive and effective.

So, with all that said, what we are now going to have for Flamers is a sterile weapon system that cannot do even remotely substantial damage, doesn't have a cooldown and is supposedly meant to fire in a constant stream; however it's going to be so neutered and heat intensive that it'll have a forcibly imposed cooldown (to keep from shutting yourself down, because you can't do that to the enemy but you CAN do it to yourself) and prevent Flamer wielders from effectively doing any actual damage in combat.

Just wait, with this change to Flamers next they'll turn around and make it so that MG's literally will do 0 damage until armor has been stripped, and then will only do damage to internal components . .. but not the structure itself. You know, because they need to keep perpetuating these myths that MG's and Flamers cannot damage mechs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Flamer debacle is such a pile of malarkey that it makes me sick. The weapon's "fix" is going to make it even less effective then it is now. This is the exact kind of thing that PGI should have come to the community for, or even listened to the boatloads of solid feedback that's already been on the forums about the weapon system. At the very least they could have done some sort of test to see if it'll actually be practical or reasonable in live settings (and 1 on 1 NGNG duels -that we normally see when a mech is about to come out- don't count as real field tests for the purposes of something like this).

[Mister Blastman]

Why is Clan MASC still inferior to IS in regards to turn rate? It should be equal or superior in every way.

Also... no re-sizes yet?

[Sereglach]

pwnface, on 12 February 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

You think lights actually running flamers is going to be more boring than what we have now? Flamers are literally unused currently, I'd welcome them as a viable choice any day.

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.

[Mcgral18]

pwnface, on 12 February 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Do flamers still have exponential heat gain on the mech using the flamer? I think that is the biggest thing keeping it from being a useful weapon. Being able to overheat an enemy mech is pointless if it requires you to overheat yourself as well.


New flamers will generate 4.5 heat per second on the enemy.
8x flamer FS9-A could generate 36 heat per second on the enemy.
Considering that a mech with 20 DHS has a heat capacity of 65..
You could bring an enemy mech up to 90% heat in under 2 seconds.

This sounds great until you realize that because of exponential heat gain on yourself you probably overheated yourself to shut down within 3 seconds.

It makes me curious about chainfiring 2 Flamers.

Currently, that stops the exponential heat gain (but also for the target).
If there's instant heat on target, but only minimal (before Exponential hottest weapon in the game Flamer) heat for the user, it begs the question :
Can you effectively keep someone at 90% heat that way? You couldn't cool down very well, and would need to expose yourself 100% of the time (because constant fire weapons).

Edited by Mcgral18, 12 February 2016 - 08:05 PM.

[Sereglach]

Mcgral18, on 12 February 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:

It makes me curious about chainfiring 2 Flamers.

Currently, that stops the exponential heat gain (but also for the target).
If there's instant heat on target, but only minimal (before Exponential hottest weapon in the game Flamer) heat for the user, it begs the question :
Can you effectively keep someone at 90% heat that way? You couldn't cool down very well, and would need to expose yourself 100% of the time (because constant fire weapons).

If that's the case, then that means the old exploit that was exposed some time ago about doing just that with Flamers would STILL exist (which actually doesn't stop the heat acceleration on your target, by the way, because the target only acknowledges that it's being hit with x number of flamers for y amount of time and that it should be taking z amount of heat damage). I reported that to support long ago, and got told it was known and being looked into. The funny thing is that they never bothered to fix it because the weapon system was considered so absolutely useless that it wasn't worth addressing until after the Flamer overhaul came along.

Oh look, if it causes a problem now (especially with trolls that can and will use macros tuned to that exact 4.75 seconds of "no" heat generation)then PGI might need to address the issues in this inherently broken implementation of the weapon system.

Edited by Sereglach, 12 February 2016 - 08:13 PM.

[El Bandito]

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

Quote

BJ-A: Now has a +20% Machine Gun Rate of Fire Quirk.

[LordBacon]

oh i forgot to mention: i am at a hero mech count of 16 right now, if its going on with nerfing the hero mechs whats the point in getting them?

dragonslayer is kinda bad right now because jump sniping was nerfed in the past.
x-5 is feeling the nerf hammer next tuesday.
grid iron suffered the most on the gauss changes. and suffers also on the next patch.
oxide is kinda good but jenner IIC is out so, get rekt.
ilya muromets is a cataphract which is kinda replaced by the warhammer, because of the lack of quirks.
...
i could go on.

it's not that i whine because i got them, i'm happy spending money for me collecting mechs and also to support this game but it just feels wrong to get mechs and live with the constant fear of the nerf hammer which eradicates all fun in playing those special variants.

[Kodyn]

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 do really have to wonder who comes up with this stuff, and more importantly, where they get their 'stuff', because I want some.

I mean, of all things for someone to have spent even a half a second to come up with or code, why this? A million things that hundreds of people complain about daily, and someone actually got paid for the idea of buffing MG ROF on Arrows, because....um...why?

[Cy Mitchell]

Sereglach, on 12 February 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

The sad part here is that those of us who've still been using flamers, any at all, can already see how terrible this is going to be for the weapon system. While I've calmed down some from my first post, I'm still extremely irate about this whole debacle. It's going to cause a world of problems that they've yet to even touch or consider in this lackadaisical approach to "fixing" the weapon. Here's what we're going to have:

1. Boat flamers, get enemy to 90% heat in mere moments, but at the same time overheat yourself in the process. No one will then be firing any weapons (except machine guns).

My experience with Flamers was as a long time tester(from before the Mechs could move their legs) for MWLL. At one point during the testing, it was feasible to do exactly what you said above. A Mech equipped with flamers could keep an assault virtually locked down. The the Flamers team could just walk up and chew the big Mech to pieces while he could do nothing but die

It was not fun for anyone. Not the small Mechs with flamers that had to stand there and keep the Bunsen burners lit and certainly not for the assault pilot who could not even power up. Flamers were subsequently adjusted to make then less effective as they were intended to be a support weapon and not a Meta.

Maybe PGI wants to avoid that same scenario.

[Sereglach]

Rampage, on 12 February 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

My experience with Flamers was as a long time tester(from before the Mechs could move their legs) for MWLL. At one point during the testing, it was feasible to do exactly what you said above. A Mech equipped with flamers could keep an assault virtually locked down. The the Flamers team could just walk up and chew the big Mech to pieces while he could do nothing but die

It was not fun for anyone. Not the small Mechs with flamers that had to stand there and keep the Bunsen burners lit and certainly not for the assault pilot who could not even power up. Flamers were subsequently adjusted to make then less effective as they were intended to be a support weapon and not a Meta.

Maybe PGI wants to avoid that same scenario.

Yeah, but here's the thing:

1. Flamers have an imposed heat cap of 90% on the target but you can easily blow yourself up using them (especially if you override for even one second).

2. If you want them as a support weapon, then find a nice balance between heat damage and physical damage (where it should be); and ensure that while Flamers will be annoying to be hit with and somewhat hinder your cooling potential, they're not going to be locking anyone down.

3. Read the exploit above that's existed on Flamers for ages (but PGI never fixed because it would require addressing their terrible implementation mechanics and the weapon system was considered so terrible that it wasn't worth fixing). If it's not fixed for this patch, expect to see many macro running trolls out there ruining everyone's fun.

4. If they want flamers to be fired in controlled bursts, then make them a burst fire weapon, like any laser, that fires a fixed heat damage and physical damage over its burn time. Otherwise, why make the weapon a stream fire weapon and then impose such severe penalties on the wielder when they try to fire it in a constant stream (via their heat acceleration mechanic).

*EDIT* 5. Oh, and by neutering the damage potential flamers have while also increasing their heat generation as significantly as they have, it also sets things up for the exact same kind of "flamer nuisance" scenario that you described above . . . especially vs. the typical laser vomit mech, because flamer wielder will be overheated as well as the target on the other end . . . but no one will be doing any real amounts of damage. */EDIT*

This doesn't make any sense for balancing the weapon system. Right now they're set to pretty well destroy whatever usefulness it had by completely neutering its physical damage and then making its heat damage potential even more restrictive (even if it does turn out to be even remotely effective).

Edited by Sereglach, 12 February 2016 - 08:30 PM.

[pwnface]

Sereglach, on 12 February 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

Exactly one of the problems that I have with this so-called "fix". PGI doesn't even seem to understand the functionality of their own weapon system; and yet they're claiming that they have this great idea for how to make the weapon functional. At the same time, those of use who understand the weapon system and/or have STILL been using it (despite its horrid condition) are at a loss for this terrible iteration of a fix or balancing attempt . . . especially if their own nebulous and nonsensical "acceleration"/"exponential scaling" heat buildup system for the wielder.

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.

Edited by pwnface, 12 February 2016 - 08:34 PM.

[AnimeFreak40K]

grraystorm, on 12 February 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

We would like to refer to the next/upcoming March 15th patch as the Ides of March patch...

The event for the weekend:
Penalties in the event: Team damaged penalties are x10 (loss of C-Bills and XP)

Wins in CapCon mechs for rewards:
1 win = mech bay
5 wins = 1 million C-Bills
10 wins = Advanced zoom module

KMDD in CapCon mechs for rewards:
1 KMDD = Liao hanging pendant***
5 KMDD = Liao mug
10 KMDD = Liao warhorn

***Great yearly special edition item for March would be a bloody knife hanging in the cockpit with "Et tu Brute" or Marcus Junius Brutus engraved on the bloody blade.

Okay, this is amazing and it should be a thing. Seriously, this is a cool idea!

[Lostdragon]

Maybe next patch LBX weapons will get their damage reduced but their critical chance and critical multiplier increased. That will totally fix them, right?

[Rhialto]

InnerSphereNews, on 12 February 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

• The long-standing issue with Warhorn sounds not always triggering has finally been resolved, but the fix did not make it in time for this patch. The fix will be included in the March 15th patch.

AMEN!

I'm gonna be positive and really think this time is the good one...

PLEASE can you elaborate on how you fixed it? I'm curious...

Soooooooooo many fixes in thsi patch, congrats!