366 replies to this topic

[Iqfish]

I already asked Russ but maybe you guys know:

Where do I deliver my eternal gratitude to for the time of day selection?

[Bloodweaver]

Rogue Jedi, on 12 February 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

...Russ said no rescaled Mechs would be released until all the rescailing for all Mechs that need it are done...

Wow, really? Not a fan...

[Surn]

Official thread request that IS dropdecks be set to 330tons in order to achieve some balance in this post nerfpocalypse, clan buffpocalypse.

http://mwomercs.com/...age__p__5017830

[pbiggz]

MechregSurn, on 13 February 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

Official thread request that IS dropdecks be set to 330tons in order to achieve some balance in this post nerfpocalypse, clan buffpocalypse.

http://mwomercs.com/...age__p__5017830

Because any clan buff is OP, even when its an AMS rate of fire buff. You're psychotic and nobody respects your word.

[Wintersdark]

MechregSurn, on 13 February 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

Official thread request that IS dropdecks be set to 330tons in order to achieve some balance in this post nerfpocalypse, clan buffpocalypse.

http://mwomercs.com/...age__p__5017830

Wow. Could you overstate that any more?

Yeah, some IS mechs did get screwed in the laser range change, but it's hardly a "nerfpocalypse".

And ... Clan "buffpocalypse"? Sorry? Where?

Clan buffs on this patch are pathetic at best, primarily to bad mechs which remain unusably bad.

Yes, the TBR and SCR lost their negative quirks. Woo. The rest of the "clan buffs" were very minor quirks to really bad clan mechs that remain really bad.

[Koshirou]

Re: Flamer

I would actually like to see an adaption of some of the TT rules: You can switch between damage mode (concentrated plasma cone) and heat mode (wide burst) for the Flamer. A less efficient (because heat-intensive for the firing unit) machine gun in the former case, a niche tactical option in the latter case. Would actually be interesting.

[Scanz]

why dmg of flamer decreased ?
its so usefull - 4 flamers usefull x4 now.
i must be increased from 0.7 to 1.0

[Sereglach]

Koshirou, on 13 February 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

Re: Flamer

I would actually like to see an adaption of some of the TT rules: You can switch between damage mode (concentrated plasma cone) and heat mode (wide burst) for the Flamer. A less efficient (because heat-intensive for the firing unit) machine gun in the former case, a niche tactical option in the latter case. Would actually be interesting.

That's a rule from the much older editions of TT Battletech, as an optional rule, if I recall properly. I don't own any of the old editions of rule books.

Last I checked the newest rules for Flamers flat out do 2 damage and a bonus 1d6 Heat damage to the target, with mechs (or other heat tracking units, like aerospace fighters) able to sustain a maximum of 18 points of heat damage from outside sources per round. If the target is a non-heat tracking unit (infantry, light vehicles, etc.) then the heat damage is bonus physical damage inflicted on the target.

[Wintersdark]

Scanz, on 13 February 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

why dmg of flamer decreased ?
its so usefull - 4 flamers usefull x4 now.
i must be increased from 0.7 to 1.0

Flamers AREN'T useful now; but I do agree that reducing the damage too is ridiculous. I doubt that the buff portions of the changes will even help, but nerfing the little damage it did? That's just dumb.

Koshirou, on 13 February 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

Re: Flamer

I would actually like to see an adaption of some of the TT rules: You can switch between damage mode (concentrated plasma cone) and heat mode (wide burst) for the Flamer. A less efficient (because heat-intensive for the firing unit) machine gun in the former case, a niche tactical option in the latter case. Would actually be interesting.

That's a nada. It's why we have Clan Autocannons and LBX Autocannons - because they couldn't mode-switch the LBX's between solid and cannister shot.

[Sereglach]

Wintersdark, on 13 February 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Flamers AREN'T useful now; but I do agree that reducing the damage too is ridiculous. I doubt that the buff portions of the changes will even help, but nerfing the little damage it did? That's just dumb.

I believe he was being sarcastic about the usefulness of Flamers. 4 Flamers is 4x as useful . . . for what uselessness they'll provide. Regardless, I agree with your sentiment.

Wintersdark, on 13 February 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

That's a nada. It's why we have Clan Autocannons and LBX Autocannons - because they couldn't mode-switch the LBX's between solid and cannister shot.

Yeah, besides the outdated status of the rules he's sighting, I completely forgot about mentioning that issue with the clan autocannons. Thank you.

Edited by Sereglach, 13 February 2016 - 11:23 AM.

[RighteousFury]

Hello Mr. Garden

is there actualy any compensation planned in the future for some of those lost quirks? Most of those changes are really not that bad or kinda make sense but some of the mechs that are hit the most really dont have much else to write home about.

Best exsample would be the Locust 1M. It is already (before the planned nerf) amongst the top 5 worst variants in the game (or maybe bottom 6-7 or so but still) and with a nerf of 40% total of its biggest quirk it will not be any better. According to the current patch note this specific variant doesnt get anything in return. Some of the other locusts for exsample get at least some MG RoF buff, although keeping on target in a locust with MGs generaly is pretty suicidal unless the enemy doesnt move or turn (wont happen beyond tier 4).

Ofc the locusts (or at least some variants like the 1M, 3S and 3V, the later two also beeing on that top worst variant list) already need some buffs desperatly. Further nerfing them without any kind of reballance makes the hardest to play chassis in game even harder.

Edited by RighteousFury, 13 February 2016 - 11:41 AM.

[Koshirou]

I said "I would like to see".

Not "I think PGI is capable of implementing." Well aware of the LBX fiasco.

[NocturnalBeast]

Sereglach, on 13 February 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

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.

Please quote any post I made where I said that flamers should "do zero damage to Mechs". If you can I will concede that your opinion is superior.



I am curious to know how many people who keep asking for damage buffs for MGs and Flamers also want PGI to increase TTK? Because asking to increase damage is contradictory to increasing TTK.

[Koshirou]

Wintersdark, on 13 February 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

Yeah, some IS mechs did get screwed in the laser range change

Sixty-eight, to my count.

[Tylerchu]

Tordin, on 12 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Pretty fantastic changes, mostly. The only thing is, why reduce the flamers dmg, werent they weak enough alredy? My guess is that this makes it more specialized in dealing heat to enemies, dmg is more of a machine gun role of the two mini weapons (if any at all pluss critting of course).
Though it should have stayed around 6 seconds before we get to feel the heat aswell. In fact flamers shouldnt give the users heat since its ejecting from the fusion core or what?

If anything it should have a weapon cooldown. Imagine a propane (or whatever) torch. Yes you're reducing pressure (and thus temperature) in the fuel canister but you're also increasing temperature at the nozzle. If anything the flamers should "jam" after a few seconds to keep the flamer from melting.

Tordin, on 12 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Pretty fantastic changes, mostly. The only thing is, why reduce the flamers dmg, werent they weak enough alredy? My guess is that this makes it more specialized in dealing heat to enemies, dmg is more of a machine gun role of the two mini weapons (if any at all pluss critting of course).
Though it should have stayed around 6 seconds before we get to feel the heat aswell. In fact flamers shouldnt give the users heat since its ejecting from the fusion core or what?

If anything it should have a weapon cooldown. Imagine a propane (or whatever) torch. Yes you're reducing pressure (and thus temperature) in the fuel canister but you're also increasing temperature at the nozzle. If anything the flamers should "jam" after a few seconds to keep the flamer from melting.

[Wintersdark]

Koshirou, on 13 February 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

Sixty-eight, to my count.

Affected by, not screwed by.

How many lost any significant amount of range?

Look, I get that it was a crappy way to go, and just nerfing ERLL would have been better. I'm not defending the range nerf.

But the only mechs that were severely hurt by the range nerf weren't mechs that drive clan vs. IS balance.... just like the vast bulk of buffed clan mechs had no impact on clan vs. is balance either, as they weren't used before in serious play and they're still not going to be used now.

[Volt Corsair]

Patch notes thread so salty I can make a second dead sea with some to spare. I love it.

Edited by Volt Corsair, 13 February 2016 - 01:35 PM.

[pwnface]

Honestly we need to see how the flamers feel before people start QQing. Overreaction much?

[Navid A1]

The patch looks very promising

However...

The state of Shadowcat after so many feedbacks and suggestions is just.... facepalm X(

Countless people told PGI that shadowcat needs: heat quirks, duration quirks and structure buffs to even get close to being considered over the BJ overlord or icefridge.... you know.. because those people have a few hundred more matches in the shadowcat that the total PGI studio combined!

They could buff the MASC even ten fold... it will not help the pathetic shadowcat... you can't just make something work, by pushing it. Let us remove that MASC already.

and here we go for another 4 months until PGI decides to take a look again at the sad cat.

[Sereglach]

Ed Steele, on 13 February 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

Please quote any post I made where I said that flamers should "do zero damage to Mechs". If you can I will concede that your opinion is superior.

You said this:

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:

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

In regards to this:

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.

Over this:

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?

Thusly, if that's not saying that Flamers should be doing zero damage to mechs, then I don't know what is. You are very obviously maintaining that opinion through your statements. You are blatantly stating that Flamers should do little more to mechs than "melt paint and warm the mech up a bit". Doesn't it suck when people actually can call you out on your claims and point your hypocrisy back into your face when you try to back-pedal?

Ed Steele, on 13 February 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

I am curious to know how many people who keep asking for damage buffs for MGs and Flamers also want PGI to increase TTK? Because asking to increase damage is contradictory to increasing TTK.

If they're replacing a Medium Laser or Small Pulse laser with a Flamer, and that Flamer has a 90m range and would barely do 1 DPS, then how is that decreasing TTK (decreasing is making things die faster . . . increasing TTK is increasing survivability, by the way . . . after all, the acronym is Time To Kill in relations to engaging a target . . . In other words, how long does it take a person to kill a target once engaged?).

That pilot would have effectively traded more damage in exchange for utility and some damage. However, it's still a knife fighting weapon; and still the hottest weapon in the game to equip on your mech.

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

pwnface, on 13 February 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

Honestly we need to see how the flamers feel before people start QQing. Overreaction much?

The big issue here is over the fact that the weapon is effectively going to be doing nil damage. Legitimate use of the weapon is going to result in the Flamer wielder being incapable of truly inflicting damage on the enemy at the same time they're building heat on themselves, as pointed out multiple times in this thread. The weapon is going to be even more useless, overall, then before, except as a trolling weapon. Speaking of which . . .

Also, it seems the weapon is still going to be set up with an old exploit intact (involving chain firing flamers), due to PGI's terrible scaling/building/accelerating heat mechanic for the weapon system, that they're refusing to address. Thusly you're going to end up with a huge opportunity for Trolls to seriously cause problems once this patch goes live. Frankly, I'll laugh if they do, just as I'll laugh if this breaks the state of the game for PGI.

Edited by Sereglach, 13 February 2016 - 03:35 PM.