214 replies to this topic

[PocketYoda]

Eider, on 17 February 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

Lets be honest for a moment. The real issue is that everyone is laser vomit meta, flamers hurt this bad so they all crying about it.

No i got stun locked using Ac5s on a rifleman, this laser meta bs has zero to do with it, at 90% heat no weapons are useful. You are effectively locked down permanently..

Even with a guass try it and see.. see how many shots you get off at 90% heat before you die..

Edited by Samial, 17 February 2016 - 05:19 PM.

[VorpalAnvil]

Deathlike, on 17 February 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

So, buff Twitter?

I'm pretty sure that T5's can't read more than 140 characters every hour or so. Increasing the character count will only cause more whining from the underhive about how literacy OP.

[pwnface]

Samial, on 17 February 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

No i got stun locked using Ac5s on a rifleman, this laser meta bs has zero to do with it, at 90% no weapons are useful you are effectively locked down permanently.. even with a guass try it and see.. see how many shots you get off at 90% heat before you die..

Gauss generates 1 heat.
Dual gauss generates 2 heat.

A 10DHS mech has a heat cap of 50.

2/50 = 4%

Flamers can bring your heat up to 90% leaving you 10% heat to work with. 4% < 10%.

Dual Gauss will not be locked by flamers. Math.

[Thorqemada]

Dont like the look of the new Flamers that much but probably its more like a Plasma Flamer would look alike.

Gameplay wise - as there is no counter to Flamers - it is detrimental to the gameplay/fighting experience of the target that is no more able to use its full fighting potential while it is attacked by Mechs that today have a Firepower that competes with some Assaults while needing much more effort/time to be brought down.

Imho Flamers should be a PvE-Only-Weapon.

Edited by Thorqemada, 17 February 2016 - 05:30 PM.

[Aetes Nakatomi]

They do not have firepower that competes with assaults if they are stacking flamers... have you guys actually played the game since patch day? It's not flamersville! The few flamer lights that have tried died in short order, they had very few actual weapons and just heated me up while zapping me with crud.

The only mechs that have been tough to beat were assaults using ballistic and flamers point blank in my face. Screen shake + 90% heat was hardcore. But I don't mind it, just made brawlers more dangerous is all

[Monkey Lover]

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock 2h2 hours ago
  
  If there isn't a bug I am undecided on a course of action. Min duration of 0.5 seconds is one option or just staying put for a bit.
  
  1 retweet 2 likes
  
• 
  
• 
  
  
  
  Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock 2h2 hours ago
  
  As to flamers we are currently doing some research just to make sure there isn't a bug at play. If there is a bug of course we fix.
  
  0 retweets 2 likes

[JediPanther]

Looks like my Ember can come out and play for a few hours. Fire and more fire!

[Gas Guzzler]

Eider, on 17 February 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

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

Way to ignore the primary aspect of the weapon. I can tell you went to debate school.

1453 R, on 17 February 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

I love this. Really, this is just so...so perfectly MWO.

It had gotten to the point where people begging for Flamer fixes in literally every Town Hall ever was a running joke with NGNG.

Piranha rebuilds flamers to actually be able to do their jobs, and what does the forum do?

Explode in geysers of salt-laden nerdrage and demand, in something like five hundred and seventy-three threads, that Piranha NERF DA FLAMAHZ AGAIN.

No wonder this game never gets anywhere. Piranha is actually, physically incapable of winning. By this point they've been browbeaten over miscommunication so much they can't not follow the idiotic advice of the headless faceless brainless mass of sheer lunacy that is The MWO Community(C), and said community couldn't figure out how to find its *** with both hands and a GPS system if we gave it a year to do it in.

This is such a hilarious case-in-point situation it makes me cry.

[Clownwarlord]

If you are able to keep your mech at 0% heat while flaming, then you are heat efficient. So flame on flamers.

[Karl Marlow]

This isn't an exploit and it doesn't take macros to do. Its been a feature of flamers for years.

Seriously people were bitching about giving flamers a purpose. PGI does and now people are bitching because flamers have a purpose.

[Mystere]

Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

Regardless of what Russ says, the system is designed for the weapon to be used in a certain way. By using an unconventional firing method (either manually or macros) they can be made to work with zero impact on the user. If this was how they were intended to work, then they should do so in all scenarios, not just the unconventional ones.

In other words, it is not an exploit. Thank you.

[Bobzilla]

The biggest problem is going to be CW where you can force 90m engagements. 12 heavies, sitting near omega, waiting to stun lock even a light rush. Makes attacking with a time deadline just dumb.

[Clownwarlord]

People may cry, but I don't give a damn.

You'll use laser vomit builds with heat eff well below 1.2 which you read in the mech lab. No biggy you been doing it for years now and have become so good at managing your heat that now you even run builds hotter just above the 1.0 even. Who gives a damn right? Its the meta and you like it. Well since this past Tuesday all your laser vomit trash will be having to face a real threat from now on, and its the flamer. If you don't like the flamer then run cooler mech builds.

In other words sweet cheeks, suck it up and shut up.

*Is this death to the laser vomit? No, you just have to kill the flamer mech before it gets in range which is very close.
*Are flamers Over Powering? No, they have crap range and can just as easily heat you up if your not careful when using them.
*Are people idiots? Yes, and people have been idiots for a very long time and I doubt it will change any time soon.

Good luck and remember have fun, mechwarriors.

[1453 R]

Gas Guzzler, on 17 February 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

Amusing graphic means you get the quote.

Anyways.

Yes yes yes yes yes, I understand the point. "Flamers are actually broken; you can circumvent their penalties entirely with macros! This is a stupid hackjob that lets people lock their enemies at 90% heat with no penalty!"

First of all: longtime PC players just need to accept that macros are nothing more or less than legitimized, low-order cheating. That's a discussion for a different thread, though. Second of all: does it matter?

No, really - does it matter? Yeah, I know what The Community(C) wanted Piranha to do - rebuild flamers into a weapon with a 5-10s cooldown that inflicted a single spike of heat on a target. Basically turn them into tiny tiny plasma cannons instead of flamers, because that woulda been "good design™".

My point is this, and lets do it step by step so everyone follows:

A.) The flamer, as a weapon, is designed to inflict heat rather than damage on its target (in terms of 'Mech to 'Mech combat. We are ignoring infantry/terrain-firestarting in this discussion as they are irrelevant to MWO).

B.) Heat, in MWO, is a limiting mechanic which is designed to slow down weapons fire and control how much damage a player can deal in a given period of time.

C.) A weapon which inflicts heat instead of damage, such as the flamer, is intended to slow down an opponent's weapons fire and reduce the amount of damage they can do within a given period of time.

D.) A heat-based weapon which inflicts negligible heat on the target (i.e. the Flamer of the last three years) does not slow down an opponent's weapons fire and reduce the amount of damage they can do within a given period of time. This goes against the intent of heat-based weapons such as flamers.

E.) A heat-based weapon which inflicts significant heat on the target (i.e. the Flamer of this Tuesday) does slow down an opponent's weapons fire and reduce the amount of damage they can do within a given period of time. This aligns with the intent of heat-based weapons such as flamers.

F.) While a superior napkin-stage design for Flamers is very easy for forum players to spitball, recoding the weapon entirely to turn it into something it's not, but these ground-up rebuilds may not be an option for Piranha. The current edits to the Flamer allow the weapon to have a point for the first time since the game launched; waiting for Piranha to acquiesce to the "tiny tiny plasma cannon" philosophy of flamer design means flamers get to have a point never.

G(G).) If you want flamers to stop sucking, congratulations - they no longer suck. They may not work the way you want them to, they may not work the way anyone hopes and dreams and aspires they might, but they actually have a use now. We can accept this and hope Piranha iterates on them later, or we can get Piranha to club them back into uselessness, after which Russ will (rightly) state "we tried making flamers better before. You guys screamed at us until we reverted the changes. Why should we bother with Flamers, they're mostly a legacy subweapon from TT anyways. You guys aren't happy unless they're awful."

if that's what you want...well, keep on keepin' on, I suppose.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Eider, on 17 February 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

Lets be honest for a moment. The real issue is that everyone is laser vomit meta, flamers hurt this bad so they all crying about it.

Well allow to speak up as a non-laser puker that also thinks Flamers were taken TOO far in arguably the right direction.

wanderer, on 17 February 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

Heck,they're actually massively superior to TT ones at this point.

Yep, general rule was the user generated more heat than the recipient.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

man this crying will just not stop.

russ already says he sees no problem, ever think that it was intended to be that way? ever think that maybe pgi sets the game rules?

i dont see an exploit anymore then ac2's can be chainfired with a macro to cause shake.

i don't agree with all of them either but this is pretty ******* ridiculous, topic after topic with the same handful of posters in each thread beating their war drum championing the rightous cause of balance and anti-douchbaggery.

just give it a rest alright, play the game have fun.

Edited by Mellifluer, 17 February 2016 - 06:49 PM.

[JP Josh]

if you get killed by a weapon that has 90m range deals less dmg than a mg and shouts im right here to your teamates...... YOUR BUILD OR TACTICS ARE WRONG.

[Jaymes Valluche]

Quote

I have two things.

First, it is impossible for any number of flamers to stun lock you, much less indefinitely. You will have to do that to yourself.


Secondly, in the underlined quote above, are you asking for a new mechanic called "Negative Ghost Heat"?

*Ahem* I think you've thought it through more than I, but that sounds reasonable.
That being said, the amount of players lacking trigger discipline does me well enough to call it stunlock.
That being said, I think they're simply fabulous. If you're willing to use ambush techniques, and are patient enough, then you can usually use them at least once in a match.

Edited by Jaymes Valluche, 17 February 2016 - 07:06 PM.

[pwnface]

JP Josh, on 17 February 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

if you get killed by a weapon that has 90m range deals less dmg than a mg and shouts im right here to your teamates...... YOUR BUILD OR TACTICS ARE WRONG.

Obviously it's not the flamer that kills you, it's just the flamer that keeps you from fighting back effectively.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

PS also stop blowing up russ's twitter to its a pretty petty thing to do whenever your displeased with the game.

ya ya i know hes on twitter so he should "accept" that people will tweet him criticism and all. but that doesn't mean you should treat it like the official complaint department either.

Edited by Mellifluer, 18 February 2016 - 03:57 AM.