214 replies to this topic

[Troutmonkey]

Currently flamers generate exponential heat after 4.5 seconds.
Chain firing or using Macro's can avoid this heat. This is an exploit that get around the heat.

Russ however has stated that he doesn't see it that way.

https://twitter.com/...027305729523712





If Flamers not generating heat is A-OK because of Macros (because otherwise no one would use them), then flamers should have their heat removed altogether. Having to use macro's or chainfire or other unconventional methods of firing just to use flamers "properly" and generate zero heat is stupid. If they were intended to be used in a way that generated zero heat, then they should generate zero heat.

Personally, I would be all for zero/very low heat flamers that cancel out dissipation while they're being fired. You could lock down an enemy but you couldn't cool off your mech, meaning you would have to stop firing your flamers every no and again if you wanted to fire your own weapons. Exponential heat is stupid

This is not a "flamer OP" thread. This is "flamers shooting mechanics shouldn't have to be exploited to make flamers good" thread.

EDIT:
Russ has now "fixed" the issue by making the expo heat not reset on flamers for 4.75 seconds, meaning unless you fully stop firing for the full time period your flamers will remember how much heat they were generating before and add heat from there.
http://mwomercs.com/...pstmidnight-utc

Edited by Troutmonkey, 18 February 2016 - 05:07 PM.

[Deathlike]

It's very clear Russ doesn't understand the exploit, let alone the argument.

This is par for the course.

[oldradagast]

Deathlike, on 17 February 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

It's very clear Russ doesn't understand the exploit, let alone the argument.

This is par for the course.

Yep. This is typical. Expect absolutely nothing to be done to fix this since they don't even understand the problem. Enjoy the new flamer meta and stun-locks!

[Bilbo]

It's one thing to make flamers to be useful. It's another thing entirely to actively encourage their use as the only stun lock weapon in the game.

[Aetes Nakatomi]

Who needs a macro? I have been firing them in twos and just switching which group after a few seconds. But I can't mash all four constantly otherwise I will burn up. When they are chained you are only ever using a a few rather than all of the flamers meaning they are less effective. The downside is you need to take twice as many and they munch up your hardpoints and tonnage.

People who are going crazy about the OP flamers are making me chuckle, they are a 90 meter range weapon that deals no damage. Use ballistics to punt the light off of you or call a team mate to frag them.

[Deathlike]

Bilbo, on 17 February 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

It's one thing to make flamers to be useful. It's another thing entirely to actively encourage their use as the only stun lock weapon in the game.

The argument is less about stunlock (it's a factor, but not the actual problem), and more about generating little to no heat through macros to be able to use flamers AND fire whatever else you have.

Once you boil the actual argument down to "why do flamers generate next to no heat to yourself, but generate significant heat to others when abusing the mechanics (particularly through macros)?" then you get a much better answer instead of "uh what" that I see from Russ.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 February 2016 - 04:21 PM.

[DAYLEET]

Russ is right. You guys who think he misses the point might only be running super high alpha laser mech and it's you who misses the point.

As the OP of the other thread already said, it's not hard to sync yourself without a macro and if flamer really arent crap anymore then a lot of people will use them and you wont even need to sync yourself, macro or not.

[Ted Wayz]

He thought people were referring to a flamer named Marco he went to college with. Honest mistake.

Seriously do you expect PGI to know what macros are much less how they work?

But hey, get ready for the $100k tournament! I am sure it will be clean just like past tournaments!

[Jaymes Valluche]

I agree that the ability to use the macros to circumvent the prices associated with the weapon is stupid.
I also agree that the flamers prolly shouldn't allow you to indefinitely stun-lock someone. I'd prefer it if the system in place made it less viable to continue shutting them down after the initial shutdown. Not impossible, but less viable, requiring a more dedicated setup and perhaps more skill.
I don't quite agree that Flamers are OP. Flamers kill because people use bad tactics, not because they shut 'Mechs down.

[Helsbane]

Well, the only real solution is for a group with Tier 5 alt accounts to find Russ in game and stun lock him the entire match. That should prove the point in the same manner that worked for knockdowns....

[Bilbo]

DAYLEET, on 17 February 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

Russ is right. You guys who think he misses the point might only be running super high alpha laser mech and it's you who misses the point.

As the OP of the other thread already said, it's not hard to sync yourself without a macro and if flamer really arent crap anymore then a lot of people will use them and you wont even need to sync yourself, macro or not.

I've never run a super high alpha laser mech. Most of the mechs I've ever run, though, would be hard pressed to do anything useful at 90% heat, besides impotently run away.

Edited by Bilbo, 17 February 2016 - 04:29 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Quote

You do realize that you can keep an enemy mech at 90% heat while keeping yourself at 0% heat right? This is an exploit.

That's probably as clear as you could get without stapling it to his forehead...

[Jaymes Valluche]

Yeah, thanks for that, by the way. His 'fixing' collisions probably means there'll be no such thing as ramming 'Mechs *at all*.
So, rather than him simply moderating a broken mechanic until it's actually both feasible yet not likely to become meta.
Really great way of solving issues. Making sure the game doesn't improve. You're brilliant, sir.

[Deathlike]

MoonUnitBeta, on 17 February 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

That's probably as clear as you could get without stapling it to his forehead...

No, he's just going to ignore it for a bit.

You know it's an actual thing when it is actively discussed by comp players.

[Impyrium]

Even with this so called exploit they're hardly OP. Anybody that thinks they are OP are most likely ones that were killed while being flamer'd. Kinda like when people complain when being killed by LRMs and declare them OP.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The reason Russ does not see it as an exploit is because you are associating it with Macro use.

If you left off the term Macro, then he might consider looking into it. However, since the problem was presented as "Macros let you do this" and you can also do that with mouse clicks, the Russ will see it as not an exploit since you can reproduce it with mouse clicks.

You guys presented the problem incorrectly and led Russ down the wrong path.

[Bilbo]

Prosperity Park, on 17 February 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

The reason Russ does not see it as an exploit is because you are associating it with Macro use.

If you left off the term Macro, then he might consider looking into it. However, since the problem was presented as "Macros let you do this" and you can also do that with mouse clicks, the Russ will see it as not an exploit since you can reproduce it with mouse clicks.

You guys presented the problem incorrectly and led Russ down the wrong path.

If a macro can do it, a player can do it. They may not be able to do it as efficiently as the macro, but they can do it nonetheless and it has been proven to be so. Throwing the argument out because it was originally tested using a macro is a little short sighted.

[Revis Volek]

Prosperity Park, on 17 February 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

The reason Russ does not see it as an exploit is because you are associating it with Macro use.

If you left off the term Macro, then he might consider looking into it. However, since the problem was presented as "Macros let you do this" and you can also do that with mouse clicks, the Russ will see it as not an exploit since you can reproduce it with mouse clicks.

You guys presented the problem incorrectly and led Russ down the wrong path.

You would think the president of a company capable of making his own paths and decisions....but what the hell do i know. I just run my own business.

I guess in short he did, by saying he didnt think it mattered.

Edited by Revis Volek, 17 February 2016 - 04:38 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Dingo Red, on 17 February 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

Even with this so called exploit they're hardly OP. Anybody that thinks they are OP are most likely ones that were killed while being flamer'd. Kinda like when people complain when being killed by LRMs and declare them OP.

That's not really the point. It doesn't matter whether they're OP or not. Russ has gone ahead and said that an exploit is A-OK because it's not game breaking or OP.

What it really means for flamer users is that flamers still suck, but an exploit can make them marginally effective. We shouldn't need to use an exploit to get those results! If those results are okay, then those results should happen with regular use too

[Eider]

90m range weapon with .1 damage.. OP!!!!! guess that makes everything else super god mode opness