Jump to content

Flamers Still Failing...


33 replies to this topic

#21 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 18 January 2017 - 04:34 PM

View PostTiantara, on 18 January 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

- I miss the day when flamers can be used only when you overheated to flush extreme heat out of mech. But in MWO it can be used for cool down faster, so that's why we don't have that mechanic. Also possible make them usable only when you have 70% heat no less and at that point stop cooling process... but that too complex to implement...

Never a thing; and honestly should never be a thing. Flamers use mech engine plasma, yes. However, they force the engine to ramp up and create large quantities of excess plasma to vent through the Flamers, which is why their heat buildup and heat damage are so high in TT and Lore.

View PostVan Tuz, on 18 January 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Flamers are not a damage weapon. It's a support and damage control tools and should be treated as such.

Not holding this against you because it is a horribly over perpetuated urban legend of Battletech. Flamers indeed do damage. If you need to, look it up on Sarna or the Tech Manual or any other Battletech related resource with proper TT stats and Lore. They do physical damage equal to an MG or AC/2.

View PostVan Tuz, on 18 January 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Flamers are not meant to heat up enemy from 0 to 100% and shut it down. Neither it is intended to keep enemy "locked" for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, an exponential self-heat gain and 90% heat cap are a right things to do. Might not be the best or not have the best numbers but a right things nonetheless.

It's been demonstrated NUMEROUS times how you don't have to have exponential heat gain to control Flamers. The reality is (which I think you may have missed) is that both the heat damage and heat buildup are BOTH exponential under the current broken system. The only reason the Flamer "needs" its current mechanics right now is because they're broken and uncontrollable in a standard balancing environment. There was a horrible exploit around these mechanics that broke Flamers and caused the whole Flamergeddon in the first place. Had these mechanics not been in place, the numbers could be tuned in a controlled environment and no Flamergeddon would have ever happened.

View PostVan Tuz, on 18 January 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Why they're underused and/or not referenced in guides:
1) They require a close range mech to be used. In a game where close range is pretty much dead. Not flamers' fault and it cannot be changed. You basically need to re-write the whole game to make close-range flankers and brawlers nearly as viable as mid-range laser boats or snipers.
2) There's always some better tool to fit into that 1 energy slot and 1 ton. A laser, a heat sink or a TAG. The only way flamers can compete (keeping in mind issue #1) is if they become noticeably OP.

Not true in any way, and the balancing has been shown numerous times. If PGI achieved a greater state of balance then the weapon would actually be viable. You're thinking with a closed mind on this with the foregone conclusion (in your own mind) that Flamers MUST be weak and broken to "fit their place".

View PostVan Tuz, on 18 January 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Increasing damage won't help its role as a support weapon.
Increasing heat cap will push it closer to being "troll weapon".
Decreasing self-heat will result in too much stun-locking.

Not saying that flamers are perfect. In fact i would like to have some "ghost heat" to limit the max number of flamers to 2 or 3. It's a weapon best suited for light mechs and should not be boated in large numbers.

Ghost Heat would be one of the worst things to ever happen to Flamers. They already have their own exponential mechanics that are 100 times worse than anything Ghost Heat alone does. Combining the two would be horrible.

Again, it's been shown how damage can be returned to the weapon and numbers can be balanced in such a way that it doesn't become a troll weapon. It's not hard to do, PGI just needs to ditch all of the broken and convoluted mechanics to make it happen.

View PostIndependence MK2, on 18 January 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

*snip*

Very nice post and mostly the exact same things I advocate. The only thing you need to do is return the Damage to the weapon (which it should have) and you're set. It doesn't need to out-DPS heavy weapons, but it should at least be a viable and desirable choice among weapons in its class, namely Medium Lasers.

#22 Van Tuz

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 19 January 2017 - 10:33 AM

View PostSereglach, on 18 January 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

You're thinking with a closed mind on this with the foregone conclusion (in your own mind) that Flamers MUST be weak and broken to "fit their place".
Speak for yourself. I don't know what kind of paranormal sense you may think you have but it's not working. So stop imagining what other people think. Are we clear?

View PostSereglach, on 18 January 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

Flamers indeed do damage. If you need to, look it up on Sarna or the Tech Manual or any other Battletech related resource with proper TT stats and Lore. They do physical damage equal to an MG or AC/2.

First, read my post again. I never said that flamers should do 0 damage. I said that damage is not a primary task of a flamer.
Second, "As anti-'Mech weapon goes, the flamer is a poor weapon choice, lacking the range and damage potential of even the typical small laser." - tech manual page 218. But that's tabletop and we're not in tabletop. Taking mentioned small laser the most DPS that flamer is "entitled" to is 0.66. At this point i don't care if it's 0.66 or 0.1.

View PostSereglach, on 18 January 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

It's been demonstrated NUMEROUS times how you don't have to have exponential heat gain to control Flamers. The reality is (which I think you may have missed) is that both the heat damage and heat buildup are BOTH exponential under the current broken system.
I am very well aware of that.And while i think that exponential heat damage is not necessary, i think that exponential heat gain serves its purpose good enough. Not perfectly but good enough.
There's two aspects essential to flamer performance:
-Flamer needs to deliver its initial heat burst very, very quickly. It must not let enemy do more than one burst or else light mech might not survive.
-It's bad for gameplay to allow flamers to keep enemy "locked down" for more than 10 seconds (including the time that he needs to cool down from 90% heat)
Exponential heat build-up solves both tasks. It allows flamers to inflict as much heat damage as necessary but not for very long. And unlike other possible solutions like "fuel tanks" it allows for risk/reward management

What this system does not takes into account is flamer count. Because flamer overheat and cool down rates is constant, a build with 6-8 flamers can deliver enough heat in 1-2 seconds and stay in the "free zone" while keeping enemy stun-locked. But that's not a reason to throw it into a trash bin.

Edited by Van Tuz, 19 January 2017 - 11:13 AM.


#23 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 19 January 2017 - 02:39 PM

View PostVan Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Speak for yourself. I don't know what kind of paranormal sense you may think you have but it's not working. So stop imagining what other people think. Are we clear?

Taking your direct statements and countering the conclusions you're making is not a paranormal sense. It's called a debate. If something didn't come across the way you intended it, then correct yourself and not be a jerk over it.

View PostVan Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

First, read my post again. I never said that flamers should do 0 damage. I said that damage is not a primary task of a flamer.

Here, let me quote you, directly, since you can't remember what you said:

View PostVan Tuz, on 18 January 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Flamers are not a damage weapon. It's a support and damage control tools and should be treated as such.

"Flamers are not a damage weapon." Is a pretty straightforward opinion to make. Again, if that wasn't your intended statement, then merely correct it and move on. There's no reason to get hostile.

View PostVan Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Second, "As anti-'Mech weapon goes, the flamer is a poor weapon choice, lacking the range and damage potential of even the typical small laser." - tech manual page 218. But that's tabletop and we're not in tabletop. Taking mentioned small laser the most DPS that flamer is "entitled" to is 0.66. At this point i don't care if it's 0.66 or 0.1.

Small Lasers in MWO have a DPS of 1.0 (can double check on Smurfy's or in-game, if you so desire, but that's their calculated DPS rating). Also, I use 1.0 as a baseline for a 1 ton weapon that needs to viably compete with Medium Lasers as their primary weapon competitor (IS ML DPS = 1.28 with over 3x base optimal range). If it needs to be bumped up or down then that's what iterative balance is for.

Regardless, the point of gameplay balancing is to make every weapon competitive and desirable . . . each with strengths and weaknesses. Right now the reason the overwhelming majority of the player base avoids Flamers is because they don't make the cut in any way. They're in a terrible state.

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

Now that we've gotten past the other stuff, I'll break down this a bit further.

View PostVan Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

I am very well aware of that.And while i think that exponential heat damage is not necessary, i think that exponential heat gain serves its purpose good enough. Not perfectly but good enough.
There's two aspects essential to flamer performance:
-Flamer needs to deliver its initial heat burst very, very quickly. It must not let enemy do more than one burst or else light mech might not survive.

Flamers do not just need to deliver an initial burst of heat very quickly. Light mechs are not the only mechs that could or should be using Flamers as a potential option. A constant and well-controlled level of heat damage from Flamers should be able to get the job done well enough. A single Flamer should be a nuisance while 3-4+ Flamers should be scary to contend with (after all, a stock Firestarter comes with 4 Flamers on most variants).

Funnily enough, given what you're describing, exponential acceleration is counter-intuitive to that because there's an acceleration over time that is much more sensitive to game balance. Even miniscule adjustments to the seed value quickly push Flamers to inflicting next to no heat or extreme heat. PGI made the mistake of going far beyond any modest adjustment and took the seed value from 0 to 4; and made Flamergeddon that much worse and allowed the use of the exploit to break the game that much worse. That's why PGI panicked and inflicted the damage that they did to the Flamer.

View PostVan Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

-It's bad for gameplay to allow flamers to keep enemy "locked down" for more than 10 seconds (including the time that he needs to cool down from 90% heat)
Exponential heat build-up solves both tasks. It allows flamers to inflict as much heat damage as necessary but not for very long. And unlike other possible solutions like "fuel tanks" it allows for risk/reward management

Again, if you control the values properly through flat numbers, instead of exponential acceleration, then you don't need to worry about abuse. The exponential acceleration is what caused the abuse and problems with Flamergeddon in the first place. Disposing of that would actually FIX the Flamer's problems and make it easier to balance and control.

If a Flamer does a FLAT 1.0 heat gen and 2.0 heat DPS then it can easily be controlled. We would then know, for certain, that -in a sterile environment- 5 seconds of contact with the target would cause 5 points of heat generation and 10 points of heat damage. However, due to exponential acceleration, the slightest bit of broken contact with the enemy resets their heat buildup values while not resetting your own. With flat values we can keep a close control over how much heat is inflicted over how much time and also know that it's not being done through some "free fire window" which means the Flamer wielder would have a cost for utilizing their weapon system. That would instantly remove any potential for abuse or stun-locking.

On the other hand, the fact that the values of exponential acceleration would reset when the trigger was released (after a short burst) allowed for the exploits and abuse in the first place via macro'd Flamer use. That's the whole reason all the convoluted and poorly implemented mechanic layers were thrown upon the Flamer as a "fix"; because it was quicker than properly reengineering the weapon (which is sad because it would have been merely removing the lines of code for the exponential acceleration and just using the flat XML values assigned to the weapon and displayed in the Mechlab).

Thusly, the exponential accelerations failed to accomplish those things . . . miserably . . . which is why Flamers are in the terrible state that they're currently in.

View PostVan Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

What this system does not takes into account is flamer count. Because flamer overheat and cool down rates is constant, a build with 6-8 flamers can deliver enough heat in 1-2 seconds and stay in the "free zone" while keeping enemy stun-locked. But that's not a reason to throw it into a trash bin.

Wrong. Flamers stack the seed values in the exponential acceleration mechanics, which just exacerbates the problems even further on both heat damage and heat buildup. Also, multiple flamers rapidly break the "free fire window" when shot together (seriously, go take 6+ flamers into Testing Grounds and do tests of various numbers of flamers fired together) because of how this stacking is handled. However, whether you fire 1 or 10 Flamers the "free fire window" is shared amongst all of them. Thusly, the system is even more broken, and in dire need of being fixed, since you can't even do something like exercise judicial fire control on monitoring the number of Flamers you're firing to spare your own heat.

The whole system is broken and needs to be replaced. It really should be thrown into a trash bin.

Edited by Sereglach, 19 January 2017 - 07:29 PM.


#24 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 19 January 2017 - 10:05 PM

I will say one more thing, I've done some programming before, and I know enough to say that not only do the flamers need adjustment as shown on my previous post on this subject from a player perspective. But from the programmer perspective, the flamer as it is now is actually more code and more inefficient than earlier code...that is why the flamer needs the rehab, end of story.

#25 Van Tuz

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:45 AM

View PostSereglach, on 19 January 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

Taking your direct statements and countering the conclusions you're making is not a paranormal sense. It's called a debate. If something didn't come across the way you intended it, then correct yourself and not be a jerk over it.

When you read the first word of a sentence and imagining the rest as you like to push your own agenda it's not a "debate". It's a propaganda. And you clearly do not have any respect for anyone who have different opinion.
I'm explaining my thoughts pretty clearly so if you can't understand it - it's not my problem. Try reading the whole sentences first.
In the meantime i'll remove myself from this thread. My words are falling on deaf ears anyway. For example i said in my previous post that i don't like exponential heat damage scaling and you still trying to convince me how terrible it is.

View PostIndependence MK2, on 19 January 2017 - 10:05 PM, said:

I will say one more thing, I've done some programming before, and I know enough to say that not only do the flamers need adjustment as shown on my previous post on this subject from a player perspective. But from the programmer perspective, the flamer as it is now is actually more code and more inefficient than earlier code...that is why the flamer needs the rehab, end of story.
Will what a coincidence. I've done some programming before as well. And i can assure you that modern computers are quick enough to handle 20-30 power calculations per second without any effort. It's not like servers start to slow down when someone uses a flamer.

Edited by Van Tuz, 20 January 2017 - 08:46 AM.


#26 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 20 January 2017 - 09:32 AM

View PostVan Tuz, on 20 January 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

When you read the first word of a sentence and imagining the rest as you like to push your own agenda it's not a "debate". It's a propaganda. And you clearly do not have any respect for anyone who have different opinion.
I'm explaining my thoughts pretty clearly so if you can't understand it - it's not my problem. Try reading the whole sentences first.

Again, I'm taking what you're saying at face value. You're apparently feeling that you imply much more than the text says at face value. Again, just explain yourself further and don't be a jerk over it. It's a debate; and if you're just playing "devil's advocate" or something in some of your points, then also say so and make your own case known more clearly.

View PostVan Tuz, on 20 January 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

In the meantime i'll remove myself from this thread. My words are falling on deaf ears anyway. For example i said in my previous post that i don't like exponential heat damage scaling and you still trying to convince me how terrible it is.

Yet you keep explaining how it "works" and "it doesn't need to be thrown out". You keep trying to prop it up and I keep explaining why it can't be propped up. If you're in agreement with the reengineering of the Flamer then just say so and quit trying to defend how it currently functions.

You're saying one thing and then, when people counter it, you're getting upset and claiming to be chewed out for supporting their side of the debate.

View PostVan Tuz, on 20 January 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

Will what a coincidence. I've done some programming before as well. And i can assure you that modern computers are quick enough to handle 20-30 power calculations per second without any effort. It's not like servers start to slow down when someone uses a flamer.

Again, you're saying you dislike the way the Flamer functions and yet you're supporting how it functions currently. It doesn't matter whether servers can handle it or not . . . the programming and design of the weapon is a horribly flawed mess and needs to be overhauled/reengineered. It's not the server load that's the problem, it's the way the weapon itself is handed with overbearing, poorly implemented, and convoluted layers of mechanics that ruin the weapon.

Edited by Sereglach, 20 January 2017 - 09:34 AM.


#27 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 01:56 PM

Van Tuz, If you have done programming...Then I'm sure you've heard of the K.I.S.S. principle in programming as well...Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. (I was in college and that is an actual thing). The flamers and I'm sure in some other areas of the game, this principle is not being followed, besides, in case no one has noticed, the game is running slower after each update in a noticeable way, every bit of code translates into time, the more you have, the more time it takes to run all the code. Also, no one wants to play a game at 7 fps or less, because it becomes impossible to enjoy it. There is a problem when a 1000 dollar computer has trouble playing at lowest graphics when It has four 3.3 GHz processors...just saying.

#28 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 11:36 PM

Updated...

I had a thought...and this might just tweak the flamer to just the right stats!

-Most likely fix: Still cause more heat after bar turns red, but not exponentially...here is how that would work, flamers generate 1 heat to start out with, when it turns red, increase the amount to 5 heat to allow some boating of flamers, but with higher heat cost per flamer.

Edited by Independence MK2, 08 April 2017 - 12:20 PM.


#29 Leone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,693 posts
  • LocationOutworlds Alliance

Posted 28 January 2017 - 03:39 AM

I do miss the old flamers, but I admit they were a bit broken, and overpowered.

The new ones just don't have the panache however. They do have their utility and I would love it if they had the cooldown reduced, just like I'd love to have my uacs back with a lesser jam chance.

But currently, I find em good enough to slap on my mechs when I've the room or slots. I actually think they're in a fairly good place, balance wise.

~Leone.

Edited by Leone, 28 January 2017 - 03:47 AM.


#30 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 28 January 2017 - 07:56 AM

View PostIndependence MK2, on 27 January 2017 - 11:36 PM, said:

I had a thought...and this might just tweak the flamer to just the right stats!

-Most likely fix: Still cause more heat after bar turns red, but not exponentially...here is how that would work, flamers generate 1 heat to start out with, when it turns red, increase the amount to 3 heat to allow some boating of flamers, but with higher heat cost per flamer.

-Other: The flamer cooldown is technically 4.5 seconds, once you quit firing bar will start going down, drop that time to 3 seconds.

These changes will keep the punishments for over using flamers, but to a lessened degree in order to make the weapon just slightly weaker than other weapons, and not nearly useless like it is now.


Independence, I've said this before and I'll say it again (directly towards option 2): PGI will NOT change the pseudo cooldown times or mechanics as long as exponential acceleration exists because it's the minimum amount of time they must impose to prevent the exploit of their broken system from being used. Until PGI changes the broken core mechanics of the Flamer then those imposed pseudo-cooldowns are never going away. That immediately makes the second option a no-go.

Sadly, because of the way in which the mechanics were implemented, either Flamers exist in a broken state, or PGI needs to actually fix their core mechanics, which means reengineering the weapon. Where they're sitting right now they can't really make adjustments to the stats without sending it into a wildly broken state in one direction or another. If they tamper with -by shortening- the pseudo-cooldown, then they open the Flamer up to the macro-abuse of the exponential acceleration that put the Flamer in its current state. If they remove the exponential acceleration, then the pseudo-cooldown makes the weapon beyond utter trash unless you make the core stats brokenly OP.

I don't think either of us want either of those results.

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

Now, funny enough, the first option you're talking about already reengineers the Flamer's mechanics and gets rid of the exponential acceleration . . . so why not just go the full distance to a proper fix with balanced stats?

View PostLeone, on 28 January 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

I do miss the old flamers, but I admit they were a bit broken, and overpowered.

The new ones just don't have the panache however. They do have their utility and I would love it if they had the cooldown reduced, just like I'd love to have my uacs back with a lesser jam chance.

But currently, I find em good enough to slap on my mechs when I've the room or slots. I actually think they're in a fairly good place, balance wise.

~Leone.

That video isn't showing anything broken or overpowered. It's just showing a squirrel doing its job. I was expecting something showing the broken macro exploit if you wanted to show Flamers as OP.

I mean, 0 killing blows, 5 assists, 322 damage (pretty good damage since the Flamers were actually doing .8 DPS at that point in time, which is respectable), and no components destroyed. Besides the pilot not even getting that good of rewards, in the end, they were having a miserable time trying to control their own exponential heat gain so they could actually use their Flamers for any amount of time; and they never really got anyone to obviously be "encouraged to shutdown" from Flamer heat (since you can't directly force an overheat, it caps at 90%).

If anything that video just shows how sad of a state Flamers have always been in. At least back then you actually could do some physical damage with them and have some more fun in the process.

The fact that they're niche usefulness (at best), right now, shows just how bad of a state they're currently in. If they were in a better balance place then Flamers wouldn't be slapped on mechs as an afterthought . . . or as a trolling gimmick like that video seemed to try (and there are plenty of Flamer trolling videos out there). It'd be a more deliberate decision that the average populace would actually make, and not shun (because, lets face it, Flamers are still shunned by the general populace). Fixing the convoluted and broken mechanics would go a long way towards bringing them to a much better place and getting people to actually want to mount them on their mechs.

Edited by Sereglach, 28 January 2017 - 08:01 AM.


#31 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 08 April 2017 - 01:20 PM

I've had a chance to compare all weapons, and flamers are still coming in last...

So here is what happened to the flamers before and after the last update, and why, in my opinion (and some others), it still needs help.

Before: More damage, Less heat to both self and opponent.
After: less damage, more heat to both self and opponent.

So...the flamers never really got buffed...at all, in fact, if you don't have back-up weapons, they are worse.

I ran a test, the setting is forest colony, with a 95 ton banshee, and 50 heat sinks, and 1 flamer. The result was not impressive...because of the last change they did to the flamers due to 'spamming', the flamer will produce heat exponentially after the bar turns red. Also, it takes 4 seconds of not firing before it starts to go back to normal. Ok, to the results...The banshee overheated and shutdown after only a minute of firing ONE FLAMER, just...ONE!!! This was again with 50 heat sinks, only 1 flamer, and even had cool run skill unlocked!!!

Conclusion...Even firing an ER LARGE LASER will not overheat like that even though the button is held down.

Suggested fixes:
1. Get rid of or lessen the exponent heat generation that happens after the bar turns red.
or
2. Bar starts to go down 2 seconds after not firing instead of 4.
or
3. If you don't want to do 1 or 2;

- Either make max range 150m, with optimum still 90m, so people can actually stay in range long enough to overheat the enemy mech(many are complaining they can't keep it on the enemy mech enough).
- Up damage to 0.2 from 0.1.
- Or raise the cap limit from 90% heat to enemy mech, to 99%, which is just short of shutdown so that there is better opportunity, keeping in mind mechs with machine guns will still be immune from overheating.

Even applying one of these buffs will bring flamers in line with the other weapons, and if done right this time, solve this problem for good!

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

Since the original post above, I've had enough time to really test flamers over and over again...and below is my experience and also the updated opinion of what I think should be done.

-Flamers actually can do better when you boat them, time the use right when enemy fires their lasers, and you can freeze them in their place, heat goes up really fast with 11 flamers, so it barely even hits the exponential heat gain. Make sure you have at least 20 backup weapon damage (I had 2 er large laser).

-One flamer on a small mech like a locust can be really useful, but watch usage even closer, as exponential heat gain will really hurt the longer you use it.

-Flamers are horrible on slow mechs, but great on fast ones.

-Finally, the flamer seems perfect until the exponential heat kicks in.

THE UPDATED SUGGESTION: Do two things,

1) Do keep the part that when flamer bar turns red, generate more heat, but instead of exponential, set value at 5 heat from the starting value of 1 heat. Reason: It is impossible in reality for a flamer to generate more heat infinitely, it eventually hits a peak. Plus, with lore, it doesn't do that anyway.

2) For more range, instead of quirks, release another weapon from mechwarrior history...the ER Flamer (suggested values: range 150m, 2 heat, 5 heat when bar turns red, same damage).

Right now, a person is punished badly even with one flamer worse than a er ppc if you wait long enough, with the mentioned changes, only 2 flamers or more will eventually cause an overheat, on a cold map.

I think this would solve the issue that some still have with flamers, what do ya'll think?

Edited by Independence MK2, 08 April 2017 - 08:30 PM.


#32 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 07:37 PM

Flamers got some attention in skill tree...

Bar starts to go down 2 seconds after not firing instead of 4....I suggested this earlier, and what they added to skill tree appears to do reduce it, although it still takes longer than 4 seconds to go down. It could still be better, but its a decent start.

#33 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 26 July 2017 - 08:38 PM

View PostIndependence MK2, on 26 July 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

Flamers got some attention in skill tree...

Bar starts to go down 2 seconds after not firing instead of 4....I suggested this earlier, and what they added to skill tree appears to do reduce it, although it still takes longer than 4 seconds to go down. It could still be better, but its a decent start.

Actually, because of the flawed and broken system that flamers have with exponential scaling, PGI is playing with fire on potentially re-breaking the game. I mentioned it in the PTS forums but I'll repeat the basic premise here:

PGI told us that they could NOT change the ~4 second pseudo-cooldown on flamers lest they potentially be exploitable and break the game again. That's exactly what the skill tree nodes do, but the current values are so low as to be essentially useless. They are absolutely NOT worth the skill tree investment. Even then, IF PGI turns around and brings the nodes to a suitable value to be of use, then they re-break their game and flamergeddon 2.0 happens. Sadly, because of this, the nodes will never be worth the investment.

Again, the only true fix is to dump the exponential scaling mechaincs -which are the source of all of the heartaches the Flamer has had in gameplay balancing and their now terrible mechanic layers- and go to fixed flat numbers. Tweaking the values in this current system is just trying to throw band-aids onto a compound fracture . . . you might stop some bleeding but you don't fix the broken core. Once PGI fixes the core problem with Flamers THEN they can -and should- start balancing numbers better.

#34 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 405 posts

Posted 28 July 2017 - 04:59 AM

I will say that flamers are in fact; technically useful. But I'm not really happy with them since they aren't really *weapons* like they are supposed to be. That, and they are imbalanced. They are either, overly powerful, or not at all. It's very situational.

In other words. I'm content if Flamers stay the same. But I'd be a lot happier if there were some more changes. It is neither right or wrong to want to have different flamer mechanics. But if there is a way to make something better, it is considerable.

Edited by Livaria, 28 July 2017 - 05:41 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users