Jump to content

Flamers Still Failing...


33 replies to this topic

#1 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:32 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!

#2 Guile Votoms

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Gunsho-ni
  • Gunsho-ni
  • 239 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 07:32 AM

Flamers are fine.
If you don't know how to use them, that's your fault, not the flamers'.

I have two flamers on my Atlas, which is a game changer in one-on-one brawls.
I've also seen organized light/medium lances that rush assaults and heavies that have fallen behind, flame them into overheat and take them out.

Flamers are underestimated and underused but not underpowered.

#3 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 10:42 AM

Things I should point out...

1. Not saying I don't know how to use them, I have used them to great effect, but they overheat too fast to really fight continually, I was suggesting ways to offset the fact that they are underused, not due to being underpowered, but rather, inconvenient due to the fast overheating.

2. You said it yourself, they are underestimated and underused, so why would people not use a powerful weapon? Therefore, it is either inconvenient or...that's right, underpowered.

3. If they can give lrms a buff when it was uncalled for, why not flamers?

4. I am suggesting one of the above changes, not all of them, at the simplest and easiest, PGI should get rid of the main issue of the flamer, which is the exponential heat gain after bar turns red. Others agree that it does what it should to enemy mechs, low damage, high heat, but they also agree that it should not be causing your own mech to overheat as fast as it does.

#4 Guile Votoms

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Gunsho-ni
  • Gunsho-ni
  • 239 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 04:58 PM

Clearly you don't, since you are not meant to use them continually.
They are a support weapon, nothing more nothing less.

The initial heat-free time window is enough to use them effectively.
If you remove that people will just spam them, which would be extremely frustrating.

The main reason people don't use flamers is that you can just take another medium laser instead.

#5 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 07:36 PM

But even if you don't use them continually you have to wait 4.5 seconds for heat to go down, plenty of time to get killed. I have to conclude that flamers still are undereffective when compared to other weapons, which isn't bad, but it needs to a little better.

To me, the fact there are still many complaints about the flamers shows there is still some issues with them, I conclude with that.

I'll still use them, but they are dreadfully situational, and in faction are practically unused.

#6 Guile Votoms

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Gunsho-ni
  • Gunsho-ni
  • 239 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 08:32 PM

Sure, they're situational, but still very useful.

In my Atlas, having those 2 flamers often means that in a brawl I only have to take one or two alphas from my target instead of three or four because they're overheating. That's more than enough time for me to take them down and more useful than adding 2 medium lasers instead that make my already quite terrible heat management even worse.

Even if they catch on to me using flamers quickly enough, they are forced to slow down their rate of fire or retreat.

That being said; from what I saw in ancient videos, I actually like the old flamers better.

#7 Sereglach

    Member

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

Posted 14 January 2017 - 10:18 PM

Flamers are in a horrible state. The are situational and extremely niche at best; and they are utterly useless at worst. I lament the destruction that happened to the Flamer with the Flamergeddon.

The "free fire window" which NO WEAPON should ever have (everything should cost something) is a byproduct of PGI's failing to acknowledge a broken mechanic in their exponential acceleration system years before Flamergeddon ever happened. That needs to just go away. The reality is that in any practical situation the enemy mech has the capability to cool off -and return fire- before the pseudo-cooldown for flamers occurs (4.25 seconds + however long fired up to 4.25 additional seconds for up to 8.5 seconds cooldown . . . longer than any other weapon in the game -including Gauss charge-). Ironically, using an array of flamers will also break the "free fire window" because you will still mystically gain heat -even when your not supposed to- when firing your flamers. Therefore, attempting to inflict substantial heat on your target will still results in you gaining heat, no matter what.

The way in which the acceleration calculations occur is also flawed. Even .1 second of broken contact with your target will RESET all of your gains on that target, but your are still stuck with your pseudo-cooldown window and your own heat penalties. This instantly mitigates your own effectiveness up against any competent pilot and further diminishes the already niche -at best- value to the Flamer.

The acceleration mechanics are the root of all of the problems of the Flamer as it currently stands. It could all be fixed and more controllably balanced by just switching the weapon to fixed-flat values and going from there. That's something I've been advocating PGI to do for YEARS.

Here's one example thread -where almost all of the information and mathematical breakdowns are still pertinent- from the Energy Draw PTS runs from August 2016: Bring Flamers into Energy Draw. One of the very important factors of that thread (which can be viewed through the link if desired . . . it's in the PTS archive, so it can't be directly quoted) was pointing out how broken and convoluted the mechanics of the current live flamer are, and how it might look good on paper but doesn't function practically in game. However, fixed flat values could be used to reign in and remove the broken and convoluted mechanics, balance Flamers, bring them up to par, and control their balance to ensure they're neither overpowering or underpowered.

I've been regularly advocating for fixed, flat values of 1.0 DPS (because Flamers DO INFLICT DAMAGE in Lore AND TT . . . it's an urban legend that they don't), 2.0 Heat DPS, and 1.0 HPS for starters. Everything can be adjusted and balanced from there with little nudges until desired balance is achieved. Then you have a solo flamer that's a nuisance all the way up to arrays of Flamers that could be downright scary if used well.

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

Guile Votoms, since you haven't been around long, if you want Flamergeddon, the incredibly sad state of the Flamer (it sadly was much better before . . . and it was basically terrible then), or any of the iterations on the Flamer explained, then by all means ask. I've been advocating for Flamer balance since I joined MWO in early 2013 and have seen -and used extensively- nearly every iteration of the Flamer as it's progressed in MWO.

I sadly think I am very well aware of what kind of state the weapon is in and what would be needed to be done to fix it. Hell, I made PGI aware of the exploits that caused Flamergeddon over a year before it happened; and I was ignored. When it comes to Flamers I've lived in a sad state of "I told you so" for years; and Flamers still haven't been fixed.

I assure you, they are not truly useful and they are not in a good place. Flamers will be in a good place when the average player will actually take into sincere consideration whether they want Flamers or Medium Lasers on their mech, which is the class of weapon the Flamer needs to be balanced against. The current Flamer is nowhere near that.

#8 Killer Kellaine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 243 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationGrand Junction, CO

Posted 15 January 2017 - 10:11 AM

View PostSereglach, on 14 January 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

Flamers are in a horrible state. The are situational and extremely niche at best; and they are utterly useless at worst. I lament the destruction that happened to the Flamer with the Flamergeddon.

The "free fire window" which NO WEAPON should ever have (everything should cost something) is a byproduct of PGI's failing to acknowledge a broken mechanic in their exponential acceleration system years before Flamergeddon ever happened. That needs to just go away. The reality is that in any practical situation the enemy mech has the capability to cool off -and return fire- before the pseudo-cooldown for flamers occurs (4.25 seconds + however long fired up to 4.25 additional seconds for up to 8.5 seconds cooldown . . . longer than any other weapon in the game -including Gauss charge-). Ironically, using an array of flamers will also break the "free fire window" because you will still mystically gain heat -even when your not supposed to- when firing your flamers. Therefore, attempting to inflict substantial heat on your target will still results in you gaining heat, no matter what.

The way in which the acceleration calculations occur is also flawed. Even .1 second of broken contact with your target will RESET all of your gains on that target, but your are still stuck with your pseudo-cooldown window and your own heat penalties. This instantly mitigates your own effectiveness up against any competent pilot and further diminishes the already niche -at best- value to the Flamer.

The acceleration mechanics are the root of all of the problems of the Flamer as it currently stands. It could all be fixed and more controllably balanced by just switching the weapon to fixed-flat values and going from there. That's something I've been advocating PGI to do for YEARS.

Here's one example thread -where almost all of the information and mathematical breakdowns are still pertinent- from the Energy Draw PTS runs from August 2016: Bring Flamers into Energy Draw. One of the very important factors of that thread (which can be viewed through the link if desired . . . it's in the PTS archive, so it can't be directly quoted) was pointing out how broken and convoluted the mechanics of the current live flamer are, and how it might look good on paper but doesn't function practically in game. However, fixed flat values could be used to reign in and remove the broken and convoluted mechanics, balance Flamers, bring them up to par, and control their balance to ensure they're neither overpowering or underpowered.

I've been regularly advocating for fixed, flat values of 1.0 DPS (because Flamers DO INFLICT DAMAGE in Lore AND TT . . . it's an urban legend that they don't), 2.0 Heat DPS, and 1.0 HPS for starters. Everything can be adjusted and balanced from there with little nudges until desired balance is achieved. Then you have a solo flamer that's a nuisance all the way up to arrays of Flamers that could be downright scary if used well.

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

Guile Votoms, since you haven't been around long, if you want Flamergeddon, the incredibly sad state of the Flamer (it sadly was much better before . . . and it was basically terrible then), or any of the iterations on the Flamer explained, then by all means ask. I've been advocating for Flamer balance since I joined MWO in early 2013 and have seen -and used extensively- nearly every iteration of the Flamer as it's progressed in MWO.

I sadly think I am very well aware of what kind of state the weapon is in and what would be needed to be done to fix it. Hell, I made PGI aware of the exploits that caused Flamergeddon over a year before it happened; and I was ignored. When it comes to Flamers I've lived in a sad state of "I told you so" for years; and Flamers still haven't been fixed.

I assure you, they are not truly useful and they are not in a good place. Flamers will be in a good place when the average player will actually take into sincere consideration whether they want Flamers or Medium Lasers on their mech, which is the class of weapon the Flamer needs to be balanced against. The current Flamer is nowhere near that.

Dude,
You need to see a shrink about this...... Remember it is a game and the object therefore is to have fun.

I have to agree with Guile, flavmers have there place in the scheme of things.

-Kellaine

#9 Sereglach

    Member

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

Posted 15 January 2017 - 01:49 PM

View PostKellaine, on 15 January 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

Dude,
You need to see a shrink about this...... Remember it is a game and the object therefore is to have fun.

I have to agree with Guile, flavmers have there place in the scheme of things.

-Kellaine

Cute . . . and maybe next you'll tell certain players that they should shut up about Quad Mechs, or Melee, or the Mad Cat Mk II. If you want to hold a debate then hold a debate, otherwise there's no point in just making snide remarks.

Everyone has something that they love about Battletech; and in my case it's Flamers and the other incendiary weapons (which we don't even have in game, so that leaves Flamers). Right now they're in a terrible state (funny enough even Guile Votoms admits he thinks the Flamers of old seemed better) and they need to be fixed. There's no getting past that fact.

The reason Flamers are in the state they're in is because PGI screwed up with their exponential mechanics. Then, rather than fix them properly, they just threw layer after layer of convoluted mechanics on top of them until they became worthless . . . but hey the exploit was dealt with so everything's "fixed".

Unless you're going to tell me that the majority of the game population does, in fact, sincerely considers whether to take Flamers over Medium Lasers? Didn't think so; and until that happens then the balance of the weapon is in a sorry state, as already noted above.

#10 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 15 January 2017 - 02:03 PM

Its not like we are asking for the damage of the flamer back...just not melting into a pile of nothing the same time the enemy does(which is the whole point).

Sereglach, and any others reading this, I ran more tests on my banshee, with only 1 flamer, 50 heat sinks, and basic skill of cool run and heat containment unlocked (not mastered yet). More interesting results, Terra Therma overheat occurs in 58 seconds, Frozen City overheat occurs in 63 seconds.

Now running the math, almost all mechs will NEVER carry 50 Heat Sink, maybe if you are fortunate about 25 heat sinks.

50 Standard heat sinks = 63 seconds before overheat.
25 Standard heat sinks = Interesting result... was expecting half of 63 seconds...it was 43 seconds...11.5 more seconds than expected to overheat...

Regardless, most are going to carry more than one flamer, which means half the time for 2 flamers, and 1/3 the time for 3 flamers.

I would settle for even 3 seconds until heat starts going down instead of 4.5 seconds. My current view of the flamer is that it is "slightly underpowered", it should be "very slightly underpowered" since the flamer should be weaker than other weapons, but not as weak as it is. If nothing is done, I will just have to keep using 50 heat sinks to stay cool, and do damage with the one ER LARGE.

Last thing, even chain firing 2 to 3 ER LARGE LASERS does not generate the heat 1 flamer does, this should not be.

#11 Killer Kellaine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 243 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationGrand Junction, CO

Posted 15 January 2017 - 03:00 PM

I am not implying that flamers are perfect, just that they have their place and in some situations very advantageous.

#12 Sereglach

    Member

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

Posted 15 January 2017 - 05:26 PM

View PostIndependence MK2, on 15 January 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Its not like we are asking for the damage of the flamer back...just not melting into a pile of nothing the same time the enemy does(which is the whole point).

You can speak for yourself, there. I've been advocating for Flamers to get their damage back because Flamers are supposed to do physical damage in both Lore and TT. In fact they do the same damage as MGs and AC/2s. There's a reason I say 1.0 DPS in my recommended starting point for bringing Flamers into fixed flat values as a proper fix for the weapon. Does it absolutely need to stay there? No, if it's determined that the damage should be less or more then by all means bump the number in small amounts until it feels right.

That's what game balance is all about . . . not making massive sweeping changes that make weapons godly or utterly ruin them and then leaving things languish for years on end. The latter, sadly has been PGI's modus operandi; and I can only hope that's changing with Russ's admission that they've recently hired a guy who's job is apparently dedicated game balance.

Also, there is only 1 (ONE) weapon in Battletech history that does 0 (ZERO) physical damage on impact; and that is the Clan Plasma Cannon. However, it does enough heat damage in one shot to basically ensure that the heatsinks of the target are severely taxed and the target is terribly vulnerable to overheating (up to 12 points of heat damage from just one shot). Even then, when the Plasma Cannon hits a non-heat-tracking unit it still inflicts all heat damage that it would have done as physical damage to the target along with extra bonus damage (up to 18 points of damage from just one shot . . . making it a 3-ton Gauss Rifle vs. non-heat-tracking units).

View PostIndependence MK2, on 15 January 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Sereglach, and any others reading this, I ran more tests on my banshee, with only 1 flamer, 50 heat sinks, and basic skill of cool run and heat containment unlocked (not mastered yet). More interesting results, Terra Therma overheat occurs in 58 seconds, Frozen City overheat occurs in 63 seconds.

Now running the math, almost all mechs will NEVER carry 50 Heat Sink, maybe if you are fortunate about 25 heat sinks.

50 Standard heat sinks = 63 seconds before overheat.
25 Standard heat sinks = Interesting result... was expecting half of 63 seconds...it was 43 seconds...11.5 more seconds than expected to overheat...

Regardless, most are going to carry more than one flamer, which means half the time for 2 flamers, and 1/3 the time for 3 flamers.

I would settle for even 3 seconds until heat starts going down instead of 4.5 seconds. My current view of the flamer is that it is "slightly underpowered", it should be "very slightly underpowered" since the flamer should be weaker than other weapons, but not as weak as it is. If nothing is done, I will just have to keep using 50 heat sinks to stay cool, and do damage with the one ER LARGE.

Last thing, even chain firing 2 to 3 ER LARGE LASERS does not generate the heat 1 flamer does, this should not be.

Easy thing that you're forgetting about when it comes to the overheat that you're talking about. The Exponential Acceleration Mechanics that broke the Flamer in the first place.

1. The heat builds up over time at an exponential rate. It is NOT a flat value. That's why the number differences are not the consistent value you expected, and won't be. Both heat buildup and heat damage happen with an acceleration formula. HOWEVER, whenever you break contact with a target their acceleration formula for heat damage IS reset, but your heat tracking formula is NOT reset until after such time as you've allowed the "pseudo cooldown" to run its course. That in and of itself creates a broken mechanic and is a core reason why the current Flamers need to be reengineered into the fold of every other weapon in the game. Fixed and flat values.

2. Flamer heat acceleration stacks exponentially, as well, when more Flamers are added. It changes the seed value of the acceleration mechanics, since they all share the same formula, and thusly cause drastic swings in metrics in short order. That's why not only will you not get the same "free fire" window when using multiple flamers (breaking PGI's "fix" to an already broken mechanic), but you're going to build up heat exponentially faster, as well.

3. PGI will NOT change the "free fire window" while Flamers still have the broken Exponential Acceleration Mechanics. The value was specifically chosen (why it's an odd 4.25 seconds) because it's the value needed to defeat an exploit that is found within the broken mechanics that PGI created for the Flamer. Those broken mechanics created the "Flamergeddon" when PGI finally decided to tweak the seed values of the mechanics in an attempt to make Flamers useful. Even though the exploit (which allowed macro-Flamers to fire FOREVER without generating heat) was pointed out to PGI, numerous times, the changes still went live and "Flamergeddon" happened. The reason the convoluted mechanics and broken systems were layered on top of what was there was because Russ's twitter exploded with hate and vitriol and Russ just wanted the problem destroyed (and with it the Flamer) as fast as possible . . . thusly the quickest and messiest fix to the problem at hand was deployed.

As another note, Flamers shouldn't be "weaker" than anything. Yes, they should do less DPS then a Medium Laser, but that's made up for in heat damage. However, when the stats are compared in the end, there should be a sincere consideration that people take into being of whether they want a Flamer, or whether they want a weapon of comparable class, like the Medium Laser.

#13 Guile Votoms

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Gunsho-ni
  • Gunsho-ni
  • 239 posts

Posted 16 January 2017 - 08:56 AM

"Rather than fix them properly, they just threw layer after layer of convoluted mechanics on top"

That's sadly true for a lot of things in this game and it never really solves problems.

And I fully agree that flamers would be used a lot more if they dealt, for example, 2 damage and 2 heat,
but then you'll get novas or stormcrows with 12+ flamers running around shutting everyone down.

#14 Sereglach

    Member

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

Posted 16 January 2017 - 09:20 AM

View PostGuile Votoms, on 16 January 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

"Rather than fix them properly, they just threw layer after layer of convoluted mechanics on top"

That's sadly true for a lot of things in this game and it never really solves problems.

And I fully agree that flamers would be used a lot more if they dealt, for example, 2 damage and 2 heat,
but then you'll get novas or stormcrows with 12+ flamers running around shutting everyone down.

There's already a built in mechanic that prevents heat damage from any external source causing more than 90% heat on the target. This is true for anything from Flamers to Terra Therma's Lava. That's not something they need to worry about if fixed properly.

The other facet is weapon balance. If the numbers are tuned properly then you don't need to worry about Flamer abuse. For example lets take 1.0 Damage, 2.o Heat DPS, and 1.0 HPS. Hold the Flamers on target for 10 seconds (a long time in practical application) and you've done 10 damage and 20 heat damage, BUT you've also gained 10 heat yourself. You can't keep doing that forever before you shut yourself down. Both you and the target need to cool off sometime; and while you can overheat yourself you cannot forcibly overheat your target. Judicial use is required otherwise you're just wasting heat damage and overheating yourself.

On top of it, 1.0 DPS isn't really able to be abused, either. That's the DPS of an IS Small Laser; and that weapon weighs half as much as a Flamer and generates next to no heat. It's also comparable to the current .95 DPS of a machine gun; and those don't generate any heat at all. Therefore it's not an overly strong damage value for a weapon to have, but respectable given its other functions.

#15 Rhialto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,084 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationQuébec, QC - CANADA

Posted 16 January 2017 - 09:45 AM

View PostGuile Votoms, on 14 January 2017 - 07:32 AM, said:

Flamers are underestimated and underused but not underpowered.

THIS!

It's not uncommon in a brawl to make an enemy overheat. Then, if not surrounded, you have enough time to align you next fatal headshot. Posted Image

After killing a guy yesterday, he wrote on the chat that it was kind of... gay. LOL! I know if can be frustrating dying from overheat... how many time I watch players with hot build not even bringing coolant.

#16 Sereglach

    Member

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

Posted 16 January 2017 - 10:08 AM

View PostRhialto, on 16 January 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

It's not uncommon in a brawl to make an enemy overheat. Then, if not surrounded, you have enough time to align you next fatal headshot. Posted Image

After killing a guy yesterday, he wrote on the chat that it was kind of... gay. LOL! I know if can be frustrating dying from overheat... how many time I watch players with hot build not even bringing coolant.

Your flamers didn't make him overheat. You cannot inflict more than 90% heat damage on a target. His own carelessness got him killed because he overheated himself. Of course, Flamers shouldn't be allowed to force overheat (as much as I would love them to) because then you DO open up Flamers to being stunlocking weapons capable of terrible abuse for a game like MWO.

Can you "encourage" someone to overheat? Yes, that's their intended purpose of a crowd control or debuffing weapon. However, the degree to which they overheat is entirely up to their own carelessness. Funny that the tactic can be easily subverted by cooler builds or more disciplined weapons fire. You even said it yourself . . . hot builds that aren't piloted well . . . of course those are the ideal prey of Flamer mechs anyway, even in their terrible state.

Just because there are a few anecdotal stories here and there of some Flamer success doesn't mean that they aren't in a terrible state and need fixing. Hell, I have personal anecdotes of Flamer success stories going all the way back to when Flamers only did .4 DPS and basically no heat on the target . . . but that is NOT the norm. If Flamers were in a good state then we'd actually see them brought up in guides and builds . . . right now the mantra is to avoid them like the plague; and rightly so, because of their terrible state.

#17 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 17 January 2017 - 08:21 PM

Important facts to note...enemy's heat is capped at 90%. Yours is NOT!!! That is why exponential heat generation does not work, so as has been suggested: remove the exponential heat, or set cap to 99% instead of 90%.

#18 Van Tuz

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 12:12 PM

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

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.

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.

#19 Tiantara

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 815 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 12:41 PM

- 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...

#20 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:38 PM

Van Tuz, I've used flamers enough to know "ghost heat" is by far not needed for flamers as for each flamer added, is more heat generated for both enemy mech (capped at 90% though), and for your own.

To hopefully balance this misfit weapon out, and get it a little more proper usage, I've suggested some changes.

Flamers now:

Damage 0.1
Heat 1 (Not exactly a true heat generation number because it will go up exponentially, which isn't even lore)
Max Range 90m
Optimal Range 90m
Projectile Speed 100
Heat Damage 4.5
Health 10
Capped at 90% (prevents overheat only if you don't fire your weapons, machine guns are nemesis of flamers since they generate no heat)

Flamers with new suggested stats:

Damage 0.1
Heat 1 (with removed exponent heat generation)
Max Range 150m
Optimal Range 90m
Projectile Speed 100
Heat Damage 2
Health 10
Capped at 90%

Explanation of new stats:
-Damage stays the same since most agree it is for overheating and not damage.
-Heat is unchanged, but with exponent heat generation removed, allowing it to work the same as other weapons.
-Max Range is back to original lore range for flamers.
-Optimal Range is unchanged.
-Projectile Speed is unchanged.
-To avoid "Flamergeddon", Heat Damage is dropped to 2, and the rate it overheats another mech is dropped by half, giving them a chance to get away or react, and since exponential heat generation is removed, the other mech should overheat before your own does, but Machine guns will mean you are still at a disadvantage.
-Health/Cap are unchanged.

The way flamers are now mean you only get a short term advantage, and that's if you even hit the other mech with your flamers. This change would mean you can use flamers a lot longer, and eventually overheat the enemy before you do, but at the same time, the opponent would have a better chance to react (and even instantly kill ur mech without dying from overheat). This would make the use of flamers convenient, but would still have to play smart since flamers alone deal minimum damage, and the cap is still 90% on overheating enemy mechs. As a flamer fan, this would work for me, and for someone who isn't, well at least you won't instantly overheat anymore.

Edited by Independence MK2, 18 January 2017 - 01:43 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users