605 replies to this topic

[Felbombling]

LOL

Paul and Chris left the thread around 7:00 PM last night while the thread was on page 7. They picked it up this morning when it was on page 11, responding first to Jman5 and his post at 8:16 AM from page 10.

What should we make of this?

Nothing from pages 7-9 made the cut for discussion... OR... neither of them scrolled back and looked at pages 7-9 to find out what happened last night while they were sleepin'.

I think they're interested in our feedback, just so long as it falls between 8:00 AM and 7 PM. Keep this in mind, evening posters... you are wasting your time, I'm thinking.

Edited by Felbombling, 08 August 2018 - 05:54 PM.

[DRlFTER]

Thank you for reading through all of our posts, and for giving thoughtful responses. I appreciate it.

I truly enjoy the variety of game play styles that ATMs, LRMs, MRMs, SRMs, Streaks, and RLs provide. Lasers could really benefit from a similar expansion of design space; there is simply too much overlap in how the different families of lasers play. I should know which family of laser I want to build around, based on what job I want my mech to do. Pulse's should out brawl Standards, which should out trade Pulses. Heavies should out trade ERs, but only at short to barely mid range.

PULSE LASERS: Best for Brawlers
I would love to see a considerable lowering in the damage, duration, heat, cooldown and even range on pulse lasers in exchange for higher dps. Pulse boats could provide a unique playstyle for brawlers that rewards quick twisting and snap aiming. If that doesn't seem interesting, how about continuous firing pulses with continuous heat, like laser machine guns? Either of these would be a blast to play, and could open up all kind of options for fun DPS laser builds.

ER LASERS: Best for Long Range Traders
ERs should further cement themselves as the go to long range control lasers. The ERLL has clearly cut it's niche out, in my opinion, but the ERML needs separation from its peers. I would be in favor of increasing range on ERMLs, balanced by a meaningful drop in damage. Part of the fun of playing the game is jockeying for the ideal positioning based on your loadout and that of your enemy.

HEAVY LASERS: Best for High Alpha/High Heat/Long Cooldown/Mid Range Traders
Heavy lasers should be the building blocks for a uniquely Clan playstyle. It should be higher risk to match the high reward of a big alpha. Shorter range, on the HLL will help increase the risk that the high heat and long cooldown is already providing. Make this archetype more reliant on Clan speed, both to get in range, and to get out of bad spots when they were overly aggressive due to the need to close. Give ERLL builds a little more chance to get extra damage in before Heavy laser builds are in optimal range.

Heavy laser boats need to feel and play different then the ER boats, they do not have a unique enough identity, in part because ERMLs are the best partner for all the large lasers. The pairing of the ERML and HLL needs to be made more awkward. Perhaps this could be done by further altering the HLL and ERML burn sync times. Perhaps ERMLs and HLLs could trigger ghost heat differently, I don't know, but players need to be given more reason to pair HLL with HML. It is extremely rare to see this at the moment, but it should be an intuitive and viable archetype. If you could successfully disentangle HLL and ERML pairings it could make controlling the big laser alpha play style easier, as you could focus on just the attributes of the heavy laser family. A small side effect of HLL/HML boats will be less slots to boat DHS, which may be helpful. The lower ghost heat limit for HMLs would also help control alpha size.


STANDARD LASERS: Best for Skirmishers
What is the incentive for making an IS standard lasers boat? How can it be given a clear tactical advantage over a pulse, ER, or heavy boat? A bold piece of design space should be staked out, because this is what makes the IS energy mechs unique. Maybe they should be the best for engaging in high volume skirmishing, or pushing en route to a brawl. Standard laser boats should alpha poke better then ER laser boats when they are both within optimal range. This should not just be due to better heat, because heat can be mitigated by hiding, but by better damage and better duration.


Keep on pushing for the answers. I'm happy to see you trying to get the game in the best place it can be.

[PobbestGob]

Sable Dove, on 08 August 2018 - 02:49 PM, said:

raise dissipation in proportion with the lowering of the heat cap. If you halve the heat cap, double the dissipation, for example. This keeps sustained DPS the same (except for builds that are either so cool that heat isn't a thing for them, or so hot that they can no longer fire all of their weapons before some of their cooldowns are up - which are generally the problem builds that needs to be solved anyways).

sustained dps is simply heat efficiency * max dps, or (heat diss / heat gen) * max dps, the heat capacity has no effect on it. doubling dissipation would have a huge effect, to the point that many builds would easily reach their maximum dps at all times with no issue. A much more modest boost would be ideal.

Sable Dove, on 08 August 2018 - 02:49 PM, said:

I'd suggest starting with heat capacity cut in half and dissipation doubled (approximately); a smaller change simply wouldn't have a significant effect on alphas. Even halving the heat cap only affects mechs that hit 50+% heat in one shot.

capacity cut in half would also be pretty extreme. for comparison, the common laser vom hellbringer has a high capacity at 72.5, in half is 36.25. This means the build could never alpha without severe overheat penalties. I think a more appropriate cap would be 50-60, to discourage repeated alphas without eliminating the style entirely. the hellbringer isn't that much of an issue so with skills the alpha play could and should still work, but mechs like the delete supernova would no longer be able to burn all their lasers at once. low-heat weapons like hgauss would need to be looked at afterwards ofc, perhaps will cooldown adjustments or something.

Sable Dove, on 08 August 2018 - 02:49 PM, said:

Somewhat unrelated, please consider reducing the simultaneous charging of gauss rifles to 1 for at least standard and heavy gauss.

Other suggestion for mitigating high-alpha issues: get rid of torso weapon convergence. The issue with high alphas is when they're all dealt to one component. If every torso/head mounted weapon shot straight forward, many of these builds would spread damage more, or be forced to mount their weapons in their more vulnerable arms.

this would make awkward hardpoint locations a much greater issue. cataphract for example would have damage go everywhere, maybe even missing entirely, and the phract is hardly a problem that needs to be addressed. removing torso convergence (and the 1 charge gauss as well) takes away fun without really making any improvements anywhere.

[Chados]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 August 2018 - 05:51 PM, said:

The sad part is that the Catapult isn't tanky at all despite being tiny, so I really don't understand where Paul is coming from. They are comically easy to disarm and their sides suffer the same problems that the Stalker's do. Even the laser ears on the K2 and Jester could use some extra durability.

Yes, Lord. I LOLd when I saw Paul’s “tank” post. If the K2 is “tanky” for Paul, I now understand why he wants to nerf defensive quirks so much. There’s nothing tanky about any Catapult, they are glass cannons all the way and one decent hit from almost anything blows off the K2 and Jester’s ears. They’ve been one shot deaths ever since the armor nerfs in 2016. I barely run Catapults anymore. I can (and have) duel down a Jester packing two ER LL and four ERML in a Flea 17.

[cougurt]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 August 2018 - 05:51 PM, said:

The sad part is that the Catapult isn't tanky at all despite being tiny, so I really don't understand where Paul is coming from. They are comically easy to disarm and their sides suffer the same problems that the Stalker's do. Even the laser ears on the K2 and Jester could use some extra durability.

yeah, i don't know what version of MWO paul is playing where the catapult is an exceptionally tanky mech. it also makes no sense to me that none of the catapults get armor quirks on the arms given how much of your firepower they contain on most variants.

Yeonne Greene, on 08 August 2018 - 05:51 PM, said:

I want to point out that, unless you throw the IS (and only the IS) a bone with regard to heat and cycle time, the gulf between IS and Clan isn't likely to get any smaller. Locked cap has the same exact effect as Energy Draw did: you'll get the two sides building to that cap and one side will have dramatically superior cooling to just push-push-push.

Yeonne Greene, on 08 August 2018 - 05:51 PM, said:

It doesn't, it has the DPS of slightly less than 2.5x AC/10s. Personally, I still prefer the AC/10s.

Frankly, though, what you say about big dumb DPS is true. It's not just RACs, it's also LB-X boats, UAC boats, HGauss boats, MRM boats, ATM boats, and LRM boats. QP revolves almost entirely around high sustained mid-range DPS now, bringing the big pokey builds of yesteryear is almost a handicap because teams crumble just often enough without putting up much of a fight that it leaves you hanging. And it's not like those DPS builds are necessarily too strong, it's just that the passive, raw TTK is too high for the pokey stuff to be sufficiently threatening until you get to the big 64+ alphas from Clan 'Mechs. The weaker 40-50 point alphas from the IS 'Mechs only do as well as they do because players in QP don't realize how hot they run and how much armor they really have.

i've noticed the same thing myself. my most successful QP mechs lately have been the black widow with quad AC5, and the trebuchet 7M with MRM50. the trebuchet, which i've exclusively played in solo queue, is currently sitting at a 3.57 WLR. the laser vomit hellbringer, while no doubt a very strong mech, seems to be less consistent for me when it comes to winning solo queue matches.

it's very important that the dynamic of DPS vs. alpha be maintained, as it makes for far more variety in terms of builds and play styles. i feel that clan laser vomit isn't too far off the mark currently and only requires a small nerf to its damage and/or duration. that combined with a general increase in agility would go a long way in diminishing its effectiveness while still remaining a viable option.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

I'm not sure 4v4 PTS data scales to 12v12. I play them because I enjoy the 4v4 format, but I also build mechs around that fact. Less ammo, bigger engine/heatsinks, more armor, etc... I often end up sweeping the enemy team. How do you translate 4v4 data to 12v12, Chirs, Paul?

[A Headless Chicken]

I can't wait to see the new changes Paul suggested, it's a step in the right direction. Just that the implementation is worrying.

Inb4 uber DPS dakka with nada heat gain, Clan lasers too toasty to even bring a handful, OP ERLL poking builds. Don't get me wrong, it could go well. It's just that I need a drink and quite a lot of faith to hope that the devs get it right.

r0b0tc0rpse, on 08 August 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

I'm not sure 4v4 PTS data scales to 12v12. I play them because I enjoy the 4v4 format, but I also build mechs around that fact. Less ammo, bigger engine/heatsinks, more armor, etc... I often end up sweeping the enemy team. How do you translate 4v4 data to 12v12, Chirs, Paul?

They don't. People on the PTS don't even use the same builds as live as you mentioned, neither do they enter with the aim of testing changes.

[Y E O N N E]

Kill2Blit, on 08 August 2018 - 06:30 PM, said:

sustained dps is simply heat efficiency * max dps, or (heat diss / heat gen) * max dps, the heat capacity has no effect on it. doubling dissipation would have a huge effect, to the point that many builds would easily reach their maximum dps at all times with no issue. A much more modest boost would be ideal.

It does get a little bit more complicated than that; a pair of IS LPLs, for example, have a DPS of 5.4 that you can maintain for a very long time. If you just take sustained DPS as a percentage of maximum DPS for a mixed-weapon build, you ignore the ability to just lean on your most efficient weapons while hot.

For example, if I have a WHM-6D with 2x LPL and 6x ERML with 20x DHS, my sustained DPS is 4.2 if we take that percentage. If I only fire the LPL, though, I'm at a little over 4.8.

Note, this applies to Clans as well, which is why we can still make an accurate sweeping generalization about Clans technically running much cooler than IS. Even leaning on their most heat-efficient weapons, IS sustained doesn't generally match Clan sustained when Clans are just firing alpha strikes.

cougurt, on 08 August 2018 - 06:51 PM, said:

i've noticed the same thing myself. my most successful QP mechs lately have been the black widow with quad AC5, and the trebuchet 7M with MRM50. the trebuchet, which i've exclusively played in solo queue, is currently sitting at a 3.57 WLR. the laser vomit hellbringer, while no doubt a very strong mech, seems to be less consistent for me when it comes to winning solo queue matches.

it's very important that the dynamic of DPS vs. alpha be maintained, as it makes for far more variety in terms of builds and play styles. i feel that clan laser vomit isn't too far off the mark currently and only requires a small nerf to its damage and/or duration. that combined with a general increase in agility would go a long way in diminishing its effectiveness while still remaining a viable option.

PUGs just blindly pushing in means having lots of up-time is absolutely crucial. In the past, a Black Knight could zorch a 'Mech with 58-63 points and dissuade any further zerging by blowing a large chunk out of that lead 'Mech, and you got much more engaging ***-for-tat gameplay. Today, that same Black Knight can barely manage 55, is much hotter for it (ERML at 4.5 heat vs. the old range-quirked ML at 4 heat, LPL nerfs), and the 'Mechs attacking it have more armor and a broader selection of DPS weapons than ever before. The asundry of other nerfs directly to the BK certainly don't help, either.

I don't run IS ERML on basically anything because that damn gun is just so hot that the range isn't worth the loss in efficiency over a standard ML, especially when everybody is charging in anyway.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

First of all, thanks for the podcast. It's great to hear from you all, and you should do it more often.

Directly from the podcast ...

• 4:45 - Daeron said, "PGI doesn't read (the forums) ... absolutely not the case" ... if you're reading the forums and interested in what we have to say, let us know by posting in the forums more often. The silence from the past few years has really hurt the community's trust in you. I know that you cannot sustain the level of participation you have demonstrated in this thread, but it shouldn't just be Paul, Chris, and Matt.
  
• 6:00 - Paul discussed "focused balance pass" ... they need to be more frequent. At this rate, you'll be complete one cycle of balance passes in years rather than months.
  
• 14:45 - Phil mentions that the duration change didn't really affect the sustainability of laser vomit (because the extra 0.2 sec of beam duration meant that when the burn concluded, you were actually cooler than non-PTS). This probably means that the heat for the weapons needs to go up slightly to compensate, rather than dismissing duration as a further balance mechanic.
  
• 19:30 - Phil waxes philosophical to ye olden dayes of 35-point poptarts being scary. I miss those days.
  
• 21:10 - Chis explains why the "94-damage alpha" (with everything else positive about some 'mechs that can bring it) is a problem. Thank you.
  
• 23:10 - Chris mentions that "universal weapon buffs" are only felt on "one side of the spectrum". This is exactly why balance passes need to be more frequent or more comprehensive.
  
• 25:25 - Chris starts discussing the gulf between clan energy and pretty much everything else. If there was some way to make 4-6x CERML (plus other weapon systems) unreasonable for higher tonnage 'mechs, yet still a great build for smaller 'mechs, it might help level the playing field. The proposed PTS for heat cap and dissipation might give some insight into this.
  
• 29:55 - Paul said "we don't want to balance upward". Some weapon systems ... SPL, micro lasers, for example ... need it, desperately, and could provide options for the smaller 'mechs that get "broken" by a CERML nerf.
  
• 32:45 - Phil, "the HBR, is it the 'mech or the weapon systems?" In most cases, it is the specific problem weapon/equipment combination that it can bring. This is exacerbated by the hardpoints and geometry of the 'mech, but it's usually the build.
  
• 42:00 - Chris, "we don't want there to be dead weight in the mechlab." It sure didn't feel that way when you dismissed the community balance spreadsheet as an increase in time-to-kill across the board. Most of the buffs were to the weapons in the game that are currently in the "useless ... dead weight" category.
  
• 44:50 - Chris, "LRM ease-of-use, force multipliers." Artemis ... needs to be worth the weight and crit slots. NARC ... probably needs a nerf. Lock-on mechanic nerfs sound great. Artemis tracking nerf, not so much. Boosting ECM range ... if so, you should consider reducing time required for a visual line-of-sight lock-on under ECM.
  
• 49:20 - Daeron, "people think indirect fire is unfair, cheating" ... no, we think that it is cowardly and inefficient, especially when a player does not properly use their armor. One possible solution ... increase minimum throttle setting by 1% for each LRM fired.

There was more, but I got timed out and lost it. Crap.

Paul mentioned the "brown sea". The brown sea is not full of trolls (trolls are funny, when they're not being too mean). The brown sea is full of bad ideas, like balancing with lore, new equipment, or economy. Please participate in more discussions. I like that you've been very active in this thread. I hope that this is not a one-time thing, and you (and the rest of the staff) engage with the community more frequently. Even a noncommittal, neutral "this thread has generated some discussion around here" would go a long way towards rebuilding your relationship with us.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 08 August 2018 - 07:35 PM.

[Marius Evander]

I dont think making ecm feasable should take a 14 skill node investment, please consider




Also, I hear you like k2's so I dug up an old k2 builds list i made for you in case there are some you havent played that you would like to try.

https://imgur.com/a/0b8m9CG

[Khobai]

Cadoazreal, on 08 August 2018 - 07:39 PM, said:

I dont think making ecm feasable should take a 14 skill node investment, please consider

truth be told ecm shouldnt even grant stealth AT ALL.

weve repeatedly asked for that "feature" to be removed

its way too good for an equipment that only weighs 1-1.5 tons. And making it cost 14 skill points instead of just removing ECM stealth was a terrible way to try and fix it. Because it just further punishes people for taking ECM, which shouldnt be unbalanced in the first place.

what should ecm do instead of granting stealth? it should jam enemy mechs from sharing sensor info with their teammates. it should create fake radar contacts and possibly generate holographic projections of mechs.

those are the things ecm actually does in battletech. but it should not grant stealth.

only stealth armor should grant stealth.



This is what you need to do PGI.

1) get rid of ECM stealth. give ECM new abilities instead (see above)

2) reduce the sensor range of most heavies/assaults (except certain ones like the cyclops, etc...) so theyre forced to depend more on lights/mediums for sensor locks and detailed sensor info.

just divide all the mechs into three categories with the following base sensor ranges:

advanced sensors: 800m range (certain lights/mediums like the raven)
intermediate sensors: 600m range (most lights/mediums and certain heavies/assaults like the cyclops)
basic sensors: 400m range (most assaults and heavies)

3) profit from your game having the beginnings of actual role warfare.

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2018 - 08:15 PM.

[0Jiggs0]

@PGI

Mobility buffs in PTS:
Yes. This. When determining which values to use, ask yourselves, "Is this too much?". When the answer is yes, add 10% and use that number. I gotta go fast.

Reduced Heat Cap and Enhanced Dissipation in PTS:
Curious. This could go either way.

LRMs in General:
The problem with LRMs is that there is no incentive to play an LRM-focused build in a manner conducive to positive teamplay. LRM mech pilots that expose themselves take additional damage to deal the same amount they could do from safety, with no advantage to be had in doing so. Lowering the flight path and buffing tracking strength and spread for direct-fire, while reducing the tracking strength and increasing spread for indirect fire may move the system in a better direction.

Edited by 0Jiggs0, 08 August 2018 - 08:14 PM.

[PobbestGob]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 August 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

It does get a little bit more complicated than that; a pair of IS LPLs, for example, have a DPS of 5.4 that you can maintain for a very long time. If you just take sustained DPS as a percentage of maximum DPS for a mixed-weapon build, you ignore the ability to just lean on your most efficient weapons while hot.

For example, if I have a WHM-6D with 2x LPL and 6x ERML with 20x DHS, my sustained DPS is 4.2 if we take that percentage. If I only fire the LPL, though, I'm at a little over 4.8.

This is true. Not the point I was making tho. In the context of the double dissipation/half capacity the sustained dps doesn't scale as suggested. The regular formula doubles the overall sustained dps as expected, and even running hot with half capacity that warhammer could put out 8.5 dps consistently, breaking even on the heat (104% efficiency). Point I was making is the dissipation is what determines sustained dps, whether the mech is hot and using less of its weapons or not. The capacity only becomes relevant if it's changed so dramatically that the mech is almost always or never hot.

Edited by Kill2Blit, 08 August 2018 - 11:00 PM.

[General Solo]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 08 August 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

yeah, 1 rac 5 shouldn't have as much DPS as 3 AC10's.

RAC are like ammo based lasers

Easily spreadable

Spread
wait for the jam
dem kill dem

[Chris Lowrey]

Felbombling, on 08 August 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

LOL

Paul and Chris left the thread around 7:00 PM last night while the thread was on page 7. They picked it up this morning when it was on page 11, responding first to Jman5 and his post at 8:16 AM from page 10.

What should we make of this?

Nothing from pages 7-9 made the cut for discussion... OR... neither of them scrolled back and looked at pages 7-9 to find out what happened last night while they were sleepin'.

I think they're interested in our feedback, just so long as it falls between 8:00 AM and 7 PM. Keep this in mind, evening posters... you are wasting your time, I'm thinking.

Just because we don't respond doesn't mean we don't read and discuss it internally. I can't speak for Paul, but in my case the discussion had moved on. This does not mean we are not monitoring everything that is going on even outside of the standard office hours.

[Sereglach]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 August 2018 - 09:24 PM, said:

Just because we don't respond doesn't mean we don't read and discuss it internally. I can't speak for Paul, but in my case the discussion had moved on. This does not mean we are not monitoring everything that is going on even outside of the standard office hours.

Any possible chance of a response to the remarks I made on the Flamer (for reference, HERE is where the post was)? It's not exactly one of the hot topics (pun not intended) and it's another weapon in dire need of help. I'm one of those people who made a post during the aforementioned "quiet" window, and I know you can't take the time to respond to everything, but speaking with all sincerity . . . a response on the subject would mean a lot to me. I realize the main concern here is addressing the laser vomit and constant alpha issues, but having the weapon languish, the way it is, has been a complete killjoy whenever I play MWO; and this is a discussion about all things balance.

Again, thanks for opening the discussion, I hope MWO becomes better for it, and I hope it opens the way to more dialogs in the future.

[Chris Lowrey]

Sereglach, on 08 August 2018 - 09:53 PM, said:

Any possible chance of a response to the remarks I made on the Flamer (for reference, HERE is where the post was)? It's not exactly one of the hot topics (pun not intended) and it's another weapon in dire need of help. I'm one of those people who made a post during the aforementioned "quiet" window, and I know you can't take the time to respond to everything, but speaking with all sincerity . . . a response on the subject would mean a lot to me. I realize the main concern here is addressing the laser vomit and constant alpha issues, but having the weapon languish, the way it is, has been a complete killjoy whenever I play MWO; and this is a discussion about all things balance.

Again, thanks for opening the discussion, I hope MWO becomes better for it, and I hope it opens the way to more dialogs in the future.

So I've talked about this on my twitter before, but flamer changes are something that we would need to open up to a much wider discussion about and be sure to include all parties including the competitive players. And it is kind of a subject beyond the scope of what we are talking about here.

While highly specialized, flamers are a weapon that on our end, are working exactly the way we want to see them work at high levels of play. The 2017 World Championship saw highly effective use of flamer support 'Mechs engaging in ways we want to see them utilized in coordinated team play. Even in the Finals. And they continue to be used and seen as a legitimate threat at the highest levels of play in the exact ways we want to see them utilized as they are currently designed.

Now, I brought this up when Solaris comes out, but I'm not the biggest fan of split functionality between the weapons for each of the modes for a number of reasons, and I'm fine exploring a setting that would see the weapon unified across both modes, but the challenge to that is that any change we do to make it apply more damage is almost inevitably going to come by shifting some of the target heat application properties over into more damage based properties. Especially if we intend to unify their functionality for Solaris + all other modes of play. But by doing this, we are cutting into the weapon's core feature in the team play mode. A feature that while highly specialized, is already used to good effect in its current setting at high levels of play.

I'm open to see that discussion come up and listen to what others have to say to see if there is some middle ground that we can find for the weapon for all parties. But that discussion point would have to include large group queue, FP, and Competitive players that have all made good use of the weapon in its current settings, as well as Solaris players that would possibly have to contend with them in that game mode.

Its something that I'm open to exploring to find a more unified solution, but its also something that I don't want to see come at the cost of its current useful spot when it comes what well coordinated teams can get out of them. And you are correct, this would have to be a completely separate topic from what is covered here. As this is well beyond the scope of what Paul and I are trying to focus on in this thread. But if that discussion is moved elsewhere here in the forums, I'm sure we will be keeping an eye on it.

[justcallme A S H]

From someone that plays all modes, at a decent level (you can check im sure) ... Overall IMO flamers are fine as is. I'm not sure how someone can say they are one of the most underperforming weapons when you consider IS Small Laser, cSPL etc etc... Those are under performaning. They are one of the .oat annoying and effective weapons when used right. Put a mech with 2-4+ of them in front of another and what happens is exactly what should.

They are quite potent now - when used correctly - and the Soalris balance of them was good in that they still work be aren't about to totally nullify an opposing mech in that scenario.

[Sereglach]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 August 2018 - 10:32 PM, said:

*snip*

Well, I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to respond. I'm sorry to hear that it's essentially outside the scope of the current round of objectives, but I'll respond to what you've had to say here, fi you don't mind.

I hope we do see Flamers brought to a more energy MG point that allows them to function in a unified fashion in all forms of play. Sadly, though, attempts I've made to bring up the discussion are met -as per the "community balance" doc as the most recent example- as something they don't want to address for fear of memes, despite acknowledging the problems of the weapon. Therefore, I'll wait as patiently as I can for PGI to bring up the discussion and fix the flamer. I say fix because, while you feel it's doing it's extremely niche job, it's only able to do it in some game modes (something you admit is an issue) and in a convoluted fashion that's the byproduct of broken exponential mechanics that required a large quantity of panic-induced band-aids when the problem got out of hand. Oh, and I'm all for striking a balance between physical and heat damage . . . it's something I've been advocating for years now.

[Oldmanv]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

[color=orange]Balance Podcast - Aug 2018:[/color]
Soundcloud: NGNG Podcast 165 - Balance with Chris Lowrey and Paul Inouye
YouTube: No Guts No Galaxy #165: Balance and PTS w/ Paul Inouye & Chris Lowrey

...

Future PTS'
• Looking into doing another PTS centered around baseline heat thresholds and dissipation rates based on community proposals.
• Looking to get it out fairly quickly but nothing definitive yet.

Dear PGI, once upon a time you've said that you value a reply from a user with low postcount. So here it is:

About that future PTS' - I DO REALLY LIKE THAT, and logged only to tell you that you shouldnt be scared to test something that you personally don't really think will work. Give it a try, don't be stubborn, it's just a test afterall.