185 replies to this topic

[D V Devnull]

Horseman, on 14 February 2022 - 09:00 AM, said:

You're looking at it from the operator side only... while the target gets to employ what they know about LRMs to avoid the fire. In T4-5 which are filled with players who don't quite understand the usage of cover a mediocre IDF user can farm ridiculous amounts of damage over the match. In T1-2, that's much harder since the opponents are both more aggressive and able to effectively evade your fire.

Which brings me to something I definitely failed to mention in my previous post... *facedesk*

If someone is unable to get Kills consistently with a Weapon, regardless of whether done by Direct or Indirect methods, then it simply is NOT worth using the Weapon at all. Some people may enjoy talking a big storm about high Damage numbers, but if they're not getting Kills, then it's NOT effective Damage in any reasonable way. In essence, those Lock-On Weapons are doing nothing more than hurting the player who attempts to use them, and the Team which they have been put with suffers for it. That alone (but even more emphasized by my previous post's thoughts & reasoning) is why Lock-On Weapons need real help in order to bring them back into line with other Weapons on the roster. Even those point-blank-enjoying CQC-type players need some instant results from the Fire Support Gallery in order to get in close enough and start wreaking their own flavor of mayhem as well. If that help is failing to happen quickly, then their own CQC Mech ends up going to waste, and we both know how NOT fun that is. Basically put, the CQC folk are unable to help make the snowball roll if the opportunity is not properly built for them.

EDIT :: By the way... If you think that my mind was only focusing on the Lock-On Weapon User alone... Well... You are rather sorely mistaken...

~D. V. "There are impacts of Fire Support being non-effective... Even the CQC folk suffer for it." Devnull

Edited by D V Devnull, 14 February 2022 - 11:16 AM.

[SockSlayer]

Hey D V Devnull...your quote.. "if someone is unable to get Kills consistently with a Weapon, regardless of whether done by Direct or Indirect methods, then it simply is NOT worth using the Weapon at all" Hmm, so the flamer does need something more like 0.35 damage instead of 0.1 like I was saying in my earlier post...Even if they matched the damage to light mg, you would still only be effective in battle for a minute tops due to exponential overheat. And since the ramp down takes as long as you fired the weapon, only can be fired for like half a match.

[JudauAshta]

their changes are pretty decent overall, but atm need to be made better. they are pure garbage now, even worse than lurms

[SockSlayer]

JudauAshta, on 15 February 2022 - 06:42 PM, said:

their changes are pretty decent overall, but atm need to be made better. they are pure garbage now, even worse than lurms

Hmm, they aren't as bad as flamers, but I agree they are worse then lrms.

[D V Devnull]

A couple of things to respond to... Okay!

---

---

---

SockSlayer, on 15 February 2022 - 07:58 AM, said:

Hey D V Devnull...your quote.. "if someone is unable to get Kills consistently with a Weapon, regardless of whether done by Direct or Indirect methods, then it simply is NOT worth using the Weapon at all" Hmm, so the flamer does need something more like 0.35 damage instead of 0.1 like I was saying in my earlier post...Even if they matched the damage to light mg, you would still only be effective in battle for a minute tops due to exponential overheat. And since the ramp down takes as long as you fired the weapon, only can be fired for like half a match.

Actually, I could agree that Flamers need a rework. Damage (yes, both Heat & Physical) along with Range & Firing Ramp Time all need Buffs on Flamers. In the process of buffing those, the Heat Delivery Cap could then finally be Nerfed to something a little more reasonable. I always thought allowing someone else to fill 90% of another player's Mech Heat Capacity was beyond outlandish. That really should be knocked down to 85% at most, and allow a little more than 5.x (five-point-some) Heat to work with when being hit by Flamers. I can agree with you, 'SockSlayer', that allowing people to have 7.x (seven-point-some) Heat still to use when being hit with Flamers is not unreasonable, provided that other elements of Flamer operation get adjusted at the same time.

---

---

---

JudauAshta, on 15 February 2022 - 06:42 PM, said:

their changes are pretty decent overall, but atm need to be made better. they are pure garbage now, even worse than lurms

SockSlayer, on 16 February 2022 - 01:45 PM, said:

Hmm, they aren't as bad as flamers, but I agree they are worse then lrms.

That depends on the Range which you use ATMs at normally, but the last time during which I was using them, they did seem a little too weak in closer-ranged LoS Scenarios where AMS/ECM was not involved. Either the current Minimum Range needs reducing or changing to a Soft type because it's way too narrow, or the Close-Range Damage needs a minor boost by 0.1 (zero-point-one) seeing as the Long-Range Bracket generally should never be used...

---

---

---

...and I'm scooting again... So much time lost which I have to make up for, and far too much to do!!!

~D. V. "catching up with chatter about Flamers/ATMs on Patch 1.4.250.0's discussion" Devnull

[SockSlayer]

I mean, even with the 90%, there are so many light mechs with machine guns, and with 8 of the things...still more than enough damage to leave you in trouble if on your own...the damage would give you a fighting chance vs not.

I feel range or damage is what it needs more of as the power of extra range is so easy to see on IS lbx 2, I can just camp and shoot and still get 1000 damage...though all I would like is just 100m on flamers, its literally too short of range and damage just by a tiny hair, while heat is perfect. IS flamers being a whole ton makes it feel worse for Inner Sphere then clan.

Edited by SockSlayer, 17 February 2022 - 03:45 PM.