9 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

So, first of all, I'll quote myself from the PTS announcement:

Spoiler

Sereglach, on 28 June 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

Not too much to say without doing active testing . . . but I will comment on this:

Who in their right mind decided to double down on the utterly broken, overly complicated, buggy, and flawed exponential scaling Flamer mechanics with their pseudo cooldowns and terrible stats?

Really? Seriously? You decided to add Flamer nodes to the weapon tree that -from the description- lower the "Unavoidable" "Absolute tested minimum" (quotes from Russ, I might add) 4.5 second pseudo-cooldown that was thrown onto the weapon as a "fix" to an exploit that you knew was there for years but didn't care until you broke the game. That means either you were lying then and you're now just compounding the whole problem, OR you're about to walk into another exploitable situation and we may very well have "Flamergeddon 2.0".

I'm just floored that PGI decided to do this. It's absurd. I'll provide more feedback over it in the PTS forum, but my first impression just utterly enrages me to the core. I'm so happy that I haven't spent money on MWO in over 2 years now. However it's so sad that just a little fix would get me to open my wallet back up. Hey, PGI, how about this as a compromise:

First, dump the exponential heat gain mechanics and go to fixed flat numbers.

Second, -the compromise here- set the base stats of the Flamer to 0.8 DPS, 1.6 Heat DPS, and 1.0 HPS.

Third, change the Flamer Nodes to increase the Heat Damage and Heat Generation of the Flamers by 12.5% per node. Then, if you invest in both nodes, you end up with .8 DPS, 2.0 Heat DPS, and 1.25 HPS.

This way, you can put Flamer nodes into the Weapons tree, Flamers aren't going to be powerful out of the box (or even with the nodes, for that matter), and we can get some unique weapons nodes for a sorely underpowered weapon system.

Thoughts here, PGI. Can I PLEASE get some response here as to the logic behind these nodes and why you think this is some kind of good idea? Can I finally please have some sort of dialog with Chris, Paul, Russ, or someone with authority or input on these decisions? Please? None of what you're doing here makes any sense.

That all still stands in my thoughts after doing Flamer testing. I still don't understand why PGI has decided to double down on their terrible mechanics for this weapon by implementing nodes that revolve around these mechanics.

Now, while these nodes might not be Flmaergeddon 2.0, they very well could lead to it. From what I'm finding (given human reaction times), these nodes do, in fact, increase the speed at which the "pseudo cooldown bar" depletes. Russ told us that the numbers HAD to stay where they were in order to prevent an exploit. Russ said that to decrease the numbers ANY could lead to exploitable values where people could keep opponents stunlocked without penalty.

So what do they do? Exactly what they said couldn't and shouldn't be done at the time of Flamergeddon. Granted, the values are so small right now that there's extremely little difference (less than a half second), but of course to balance the nodes to make them worth the investment, the values would need to be much higher. That would, of course, lead to a fully exploitable weapon system and Flamergeddon 2.0. That's not going to happen; and therefore that leaves us with useless nodes.

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

I don't want that, I don't think any other player wants that, and I don't think PGI actually wants that (despite all of their efforts to convince us otherwise). That said, here's what I'd recommend PGI actually do with Flamers, since we're presented with a golden opportunity to fix this poor weapon system that's sat in a terrible state for far too long:

1. Dump the exponential scaling mechanics and "pseudo cooldown bar" for fixed, flat values. The bar might work well for a RAC, but it doesn't work for a Flamer.

2. Set the Flamer's base stats to a fixed and flat .8 DPS, 1.6 Heat DPS, and 1.0 HPS. These numbers are, of course, subject to change and balancing, but I think it's a nice place to start and a fair compromise with PGI over what I've advocated for in the past.

3. Put the two Flamer nodes at 12.5% (each) increase in Heat DPS and HPS to then get the Flamer to .8 DPS, 2.0 Heat DPS, and 1.25 HPS. This makes the Flamer not OP, but certainly a viable weapon system for what it's intended to do.

Come on, PGI. Please? Work with me, here. I've done my best to be as patient as possible; and at the time of Flamergeddon Russ stated that the time to discuss changing the Flamer's core mechanics away from the exponential acceleration values was a discussion for a different time. Why can't now be that time? With all of the new tech coming in now is the perfect time to address this weapon system's problems.

Can we at least get a dialog going here with some kind of PGI response as to the logic of these decisions and why we haven't addressed the inherent flaws of the Flamer, yet?

[Sereglach]

I really hope PGI is at least considering addressing this. I mean, really, if they leave the nodes as is they're useless. If they actually make them useful they'll be doing something they flat out said they couldn't do, and it'll lead to Flamergeddon 2.0.

Fix the Flamer, PGI, please! Then add meaningful nodes for the weapon if you want to include them in the skill tree.

[MechTech Dragoon]

And the animation?? please lol....flashlights are terrible :/

[Jep Jorgensson]

Given where they are placed in the firepower tree and their value, the flamer nodes are worthless.

[Sereglach]

XkrX Dragoon, on 29 June 2017 - 07:58 PM, said:

And the animation?? please lol....flashlights are terrible :/

Honestly, they don't look terrible, but I did like their old look a lot more. Regardless, what I care about is having a worthwhile weapon system, and not the junk we have.

Jep Jorgensson, on 29 June 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

Given where they are placed in the firepower tree and their value, the flamer nodes are worthless.

They are, but the two important points are that 1: the nodes do something PGI said couldn't and shouldn't be done without breaking the game, again and 2: if they actually put the nodes at a worthwhile value then it would, according to PGI, break the game again.

Therefore, that's why I think there's all the more reason to just fix the Flamers and make them reasonably balanced weapons. Then they can worry about the nodes and what they do; and I even included a suggestion for PGI on how that should be done.

[Sereglach]

So a patch comes in and Flamers get no attention. I'm not surprised, because there's a lot of bugs and balancing that needs to be done on the new shinies. However, it'd be nice to actually get this issue addressed as it's a flat out mockery if it's intended as is; and it's gamebreaking if the values for the nodes are made worthwhile (even according to PGI when Flamergeddon happened).

Fix Flamers, then give them meaningful nodes. That's all you need to do, PGI. Please.

[Carrioncrows]

I had this crazy idea once upon a time that flamers could be a tactical weapon.

You know make fire templates, use it to set a fire wall which make a smoke screen, something fun and useful.

Mech standing in it or set on fire suffer a debuff for a certain amount of time that hits hurts lock on times and heat venting.

But...nope.

[Sereglach]

Carrioncrows, on 30 June 2017 - 08:34 PM, said:

I had this crazy idea once upon a time that flamers could be a tactical weapon.

You know make fire templates, use it to set a fire wall which make a smoke screen, something fun and useful.

Mech standing in it or set on fire suffer a debuff for a certain amount of time that hits hurts lock on times and heat venting.

But...nope.

While I wish we did have the ability to set terrain on fire (like TT), I'd be happy to just have a fixed and well balanced functional base weapon. We don't even have that right now . . . Flamers are sadly utter junk unless you want to run a troll build . . . and even that is niche at best.

[Blackhound]

Sereglach, on 28 June 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

3. Put the two Flamer nodes at 12.5% (each) increase in Heat DPS and HPS to then get the Flamer to .8 DPS, 2.0 Heat DPS, and 1.25 HPS. This makes the Flamer not OP, but certainly a viable weapon system for what it's intended to do.

This is what flamers were in March of 2015, but an unannounced and noteless hotfix gutted them in April the following month. They were about as good as MGs at scrambling internals during their brief window of glory.

[Sereglach]

Blackhound, on 01 July 2017 - 01:10 AM, said:

This is what flamers were in March of 2015, but an unannounced and noteless hotfix gutted them in April the following month. They were about as good as MGs at scrambling internals during their brief window of glory.

No, they were never what I described they should be. Flamers have, since the time the Blackjack was introduced, had exponential heat mechanics that start the moment you fire. Before that they instantly put your mech's heat around 35% and then started to scale up from there. However, they've always had exponential heat mechanics. At that time they were just too weak to be bothered with. Flamergeddon, when they tweaked the numbers, brought out the flaws in their broken mechanic and literally broke the game.

Now, that said, I will agree that in the time period you mention, when Flamers did damage and had some crit-seeking properties, they actually were workable . . . even if they were still considered the worst weapon in the game.

It's all a pity. I really wish they had just simple fixed flat numbers and were balanced to make them a viable weapon . . . not the hot wretched mess they are today.