271 replies to this topic

[sycocys]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 11:58 AM, said:

I can emulate the behavior by basically spam clicking my mouse button. It's not really a macro problem, it's a flamer exponential heat generation problem.

Can you do this with 100% accuracy while engaged in a brawl? No. You'll be triggering heat gains on yourself.

Allowing players to intentionally remove skill from the game has been an issue for quite some time.

--
There's a pretty reasonable fix - add cool down that triggers once you let off the weapon.

PGI's most likely fix - ghost heat.

[pwnface]

Scout Derek, on 17 February 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

Like I said, opinion, not going to dive deep into this conversation, but I think this statement's enough:

PGI decides how to make their game. Of course they'll listen to the player base at some points, but only to a extent where they see widespread on their servers on the use of flammers. Per say, for example, Arctic Cheetah. They didn't fix them until later results proved the player base right on the unbalancing.

A good test would be to record the use of flamers in-game, to truly see how effective they are in groups, or as a lone wolf while playing.

Did PGI "decide" that Artemis should affect streak lock time? Is this working as intended also?

You are right, PGI gets to decide how they develop their game. However, the PLAYERS have the right to point out major glaring mistakes in their game.

If they wanted flamers to be a heat neutral weapon they would have designed them to generate 0 heat.

[Mcgral18]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Being able to keep an enemy mech at 90% heat while keeping myself at 0% heat is a BUG regardless of what Russ is willing to admit. Players should not be able to circumvent exponential heat generation by artificially altering their firing pattern. If PGI intended flamers to be used as a heat neutral weapon then exponential heat generation wouldn't even exist as a mechanic.

This is simply a case of Russ standing by PGI's mistakes and not wanting to admit something is broken. Whether or not the flamer is "OP" or even "useful" is actually irrelevant, this is clearly a bug and an instance where something is not working as intended.

Now I have a question:
What's an acceptable level?

With my alpha+Chainfire, I essentially cancel out my dissipation, but can freely fire my 6 SPLs for at least 100 damage before heat issues arise.

The chainfire does not cancel out the heat increase, but just prolongs it.


Is that a fair level?


Or, remove the exponential gain altogether for all Flamers, and keep Flamers at 1 H/s always, and heat to target at X H/s always?

Removes the infamous 57 SHS Stalker+flamer, but stunlocks would still be possible (if the input heat is greater than the mechs dissipation), BUT the shooter would always have heat to contend with.

[GrimRiver]

Flamers broken?

Works only in 90-100m(much less range then brawlers)

Borks total heat efficiency, even with just 1 flamer

Requires dedicated playstyle and help from teammates to single out heat heavy mechs

Gives up DPS, just to attack via heat scale

Makes the mech using flamers vulnerable and open to attack from other enemy mechs in area

Doesn't increase heat to enemy mech instantly thus giving the enemy mech enough of time to defend and retaliate

Did I say only works in 90-100m yet? Because you gotta face hug and hope he doesn't have a friend(s) nearby just to make these things work.

Edited by GrimRiver, 17 February 2016 - 12:13 PM.

[pwnface]

Mcgral18, on 17 February 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

Now I have a question:
What's an acceptable level?

With my alpha+Chainfire, I essentially cancel out my dissipation, but can freely fire my 6 SPLs for at least 100 damage before heat issues arise.

The chainfire does not cancel out the heat increase, but just prolongs it.


Is that a fair level?


Or, remove the exponential gain altogether for all Flamers, and keep Flamers at 1 H/s always, and heat to target at X H/s always?

Removes the infamous 57 SHS Stalker+flamer, but stunlocks would still be possible (if the input heat is greater than the mechs dissipation), BUT the shooter would always have heat to contend with.

Or, remove the exponential gain altogether for all Flamers, and keep Flamers at 1 H/s always, and heat to target at X H/s always?

What purpose does exponential heat gain serve? It's clearly causing problems with ways to circumvent it. PGI should absolutely ditch the exponential heat generation mechanic and have flat heat applied on enemy and to yourself at a rate that can be balanced based on more testing.

GrimRiver, on 17 February 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

Flamers broken?

Works only in 90-100m(much less range then brawlers)

Borks total heat efficiency, even with just 1 flamer

Requires dedicated playstyle and help from teammates to single out heat heavy mechs

Gives up DPS, just to attack via heat scale

Makes the mech using flamers vulnerable and open to attack from other enemy mechs in area

Doesn't increase heat to enemy mech instantly thus giving the enemy mech enough of time to defend and retaliate

Did I say only works in 90-100m yet? Because you gotta face hug and hope he doesn't have a friend(s) nearby just to make these things work.

You can keep an enemy at 90% heat indefinitely by using 2 Flamers while still using your own weapons to deal damage. This is the ONLY problem we are talking about here. If flamers worked correctly none of us would be asking for a fix.

Edited by pwnface, 17 February 2016 - 12:15 PM.

[Scout Derek]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

Did PGI "decide" that Artemis should affect streak lock time? Is this working as intended also?

You are right, PGI gets to decide how they develop their game. However, the PLAYERS have the right to point out major glaring mistakes in their game.

If they wanted flamers to be a heat neutral weapon they would have designed them to generate 0 heat.

Um, don't know anything about Artemis affecting streak lock time, and besides, Streaks and Artemis work fine together, and even Artemis and SRMs, regardless if working as intended or not.

And I didn't say that players don't have the right to point out errors in a game, I said that that PGI may listen to the player base at times, and may make changes if they do find a function to be in error or unbalanced if they have the data to do so.

[FupDup]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

What purpose does exponential heat gain serve? It's clearly causing problems with ways to circumvent it. PGI should absolutely ditch the exponential heat generation mechanic and have flat heat applied on enemy and to yourself at a rate that can be balanced based on more testing.

I like to think that they added the exponential effect just so that I could make this video:

[Roadkill]

Mcgral18, on 17 February 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

The Flamers "remember" how long they've been fired, for whatever duration.

All flamers as a group, or each flamer individually? It sounds like you're saying the former, but I'm curious. (Because if not, then chain fire should work.)

[Chuck Jager]

Prosperity Park, on 17 February 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

I tweeted Russ about the destroyed Flamer multiplier decay. No reply... Probably didn't know what I was talking about, though.

If he replied it would lend credibility to the issue they may be researching or know is broken.

This bug has been in game for a long time, similar to the fact a macro MG could spit out a ton more damage, because of the lack of cooldown (right before MG nerf - do not know if they ever found a way to stop it).

So folks are upset that in some pretty hard circumstances flamers can be useful.

[Deathlike]

Roadkill, on 17 February 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

All flamers as a group, or each flamer individually? It sounds like you're saying the former, but I'm curious. (Because if not, then chain fire should work.)

It's really "the use" of the flamer (think of it in terms of what it was like with AC2 Ghost Heat).

It's not the # of flamers used (although using more heats you up more), it's when "a flamer" was last used.

[pwnface]

Scout Derek, on 17 February 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Um, don't know anything about Artemis affecting streak lock time, and besides, Streaks and Artemis work fine together, and even Artemis and SRMs, regardless if working as intended or not.

Artemis currently speeds up lock time on Streaks since Streaks use the same target lock as LRMs. However, Artemis does not add tonnage or slots to Streaks the way that it does for LRMs.

Traditionally, Streaks aren't supposed to be affected by Artemis whatsoever.

This is a known BUG. Has been since I started playing this game in beta.

[pwnface]

Roadkill, on 17 February 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

All flamers as a group, or each flamer individually? It sounds like you're saying the former, but I'm curious. (Because if not, then chain fire should work.)

Actually, I think it is all flamers as a group.
Chainfiring eventually triggers exponential heat or some kind of heat generation.
Pulsing 6 flamers does not (haven't tested with more than 6).

[GrimRiver]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

Or, remove the exponential gain altogether for all Flamers, and keep Flamers at 1 H/s always, and heat to target at X H/s always?

What purpose does exponential heat gain serve? It's clearly causing problems with ways to circumvent it. PGI should absolutely ditch the exponential heat generation mechanic and have flat heat applied on enemy and to yourself at a rate that can be balanced based on more testing.



You can keep an enemy at 90% heat indefinitely by using 2 Flamers while still using your own weapons to deal damage. This is the ONLY problem we are talking about here. If flamers worked correctly none of us would be asking for a fix.

Yeah, I understand what people are asking for but I yet to see anyone give up DPS or take the risk on running these kinds of builds, so I'm gonna stay on the bench about changing the flamers.

Until people start to abuse it and then I'm gonna pop on here to say "fix it".

[pwnface]

GrimRiver, on 17 February 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Yeah, I understand what people are asking for but I yet to see anyone give up DPS or take the risk on running these kinds of builds, so I'm gonna stay on the bench about changing the flamers.

Until people start to abuse it and then I'm gonna pop on here to say "fix it".

There is no reason CSPL ACH builds shouldn't switch to 2x flamers 5x CSPLs. This WILL start to get abused in the following weeks. A lot of light mechs already need to close into short range to deal damage, being able to generate massive heat on your enemy while taking a hit to your own dissipation but no extra heat generation is a no brainer.

[GrimRiver]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

There is no reason CSPL ACH builds shouldn't switch to 2x flamers 5x CSPLs. This WILL start to get abused in the following weeks. A lot of light mechs already need to close into short range to deal damage, being able to generate massive heat on your enemy while taking a hit to your own dissipation but no extra heat generation is a no brainer.

I just had a ACH flamer attack me in my atlas last match, lets just say an alpha to the face made him into a good little obedient kitty for the rest of the match. lol

But Russ just tweated about a possible bug so flamers might get fixed or it could be about the 3pv camera?

[Sereglach]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

There is no reason CSPL ACH builds shouldn't switch to 2x flamers 5x CSPLs. This WILL start to get abused in the following weeks. A lot of light mechs already need to close into short range to deal damage, being able to generate massive heat on your enemy while taking a hit to your own dissipation but no extra heat generation is a no brainer.

Exactly. Russ is on full damage control mode saying it'll blow over like a fad. The reality is that as knowledge of this spreads so too will its use. Until it's fixed I'll be staying away from the game like the plague. Still monitoring things here, but I'm not even logging in. I've already tested it and know it's there. It's only a matter of time before it proliferates to the masses.

It's kind of like the AC/2 macro gig, or the Gauss/PPC macro (when charge was first implemented). Eventually PGI owned up to the issues and did something about it (visual changes and screen shake for former and PPC/Gauss combo limits for the latter). Hopefully it'll be the same here.

Once they do own up to it and fix it, hopefully it's with something more logical like has been mentioned previously. Something akin to 1 DPS, 1 Heat Dam., and .5 Heat Gen should be fine, but the numbers can be tuned REASONABLY, as long as the exponential/accelerating heat mechanic goes into the trash, where it belongs. It's a sadly terrible implementation that PGI needs to own up to and fix.

Whether people want to call it a Bug, Loophole, Exploit, or whatever else . . . the problem is there, it DOES exist, and it'll be used and abused more as people understand it and wield it more effectively.

[pwnface]

GrimRiver, on 17 February 2016 - 01:18 PM, said:

I just had a ACH flamer attack me in my atlas last match, lets just say an alpha to the face made him into a good little obedient kitty for the rest of the match. lol

But Russ just tweated about a possible bug so flamers might get fixed or it could be about the 3pv camera?

We'll see what the fix is for. I really hope it's for the flamers.

[Mystere]

Kossi, on 17 February 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

Why PGI never listen to comp players? Community have to suffer because of a few no good loud mouths who wants to play like this would be a freaking role game??? I do not care about lore. I just want to play a good robot game with good players. Do not take that away from me please.

If you really do not care about lore, then I have two alternative games you might want to check out, this and this.

[Mystere]

pwnface, on 17 February 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

You can keep an enemy at 90% heat indefinitely by using 2 Flamers while still using your own weapons to deal damage. This is the ONLY problem we are talking about here. If flamers worked correctly none of us would be asking for a fix.

I beg to disagree. Some are opposed to any crowd control (i.e. stun lock):

xMADCATTERx, on 16 February 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Stun locks in MWO isn't good for game play.

Widowmaker1981, on 17 February 2016 - 12:57 AM, said:

Stunlocks (which this is) have no place in a FPS.

oldradagast, on 17 February 2016 - 04:14 AM, said:

Stun-locks, such as the hyper-buffed flamers, are horrible for a game...

And these do not include those who implied as such but have nothing directly quotable.

[pwnface]

Mystere, on 17 February 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

I beg to disagree. Some are opposed to any crowd control (i.e. stun lock):

Sure lots of people don't like that flamers generate heat.

Removing flamer heat generation wouldn't be a "fix" though, since the heat generation mechanic does work correctly. It's only the self-heat generation that is borked.