126 replies to this topic

[SnowDragon]

William Petersen, on 27 March 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

That's stupid.


AS7-D Atlas is at, let's say, 30 heat. He miraculously survived all ammo explosion checks, and got himself up to a forced shut down anyway.

Let's assume he has 0 engine crits taken, which, if he did, would suggest his CT was exposed (or he took a very unlucky TAC or two) and was moments away from destruction anyway).

Now let's assume our offender is a Firestarter, since that's the only mech I know offhand who mounts more than one or two flamers. Let's hypothetically modify said Firestarter so the 4th flamer is forward-facing, and add 4 heat sinks so it can fire all flamers and run and remain heat neutral.

Now, the firsestarter is capable of inflicting *8* heat per turn on the atlas. The atlas sinks 20 per turn.

So instead of restarting in 1 turn (30-20=10 < 14 = start up), it restarts in 2 (30-20+8=18-20+8 = 6 <14 = start up).

Let me also point out that, aside from these flamers, the firsestarter in question has practically no other armament of consequence. Let's also point out that said firestarter also must maintain a close distance to the Atlas, so he should be a bit easier to hit and his movement much more predictable.

Admittedly, against a mech with only 10 heatsinks, yes, 8 heat per turn IS significant and will keep the mech in question shut down for much longer, but that wasn't the hypothetical. And still doesn't negate the incredible disadvantage of bringing along a mech equipped specifically to take advantage of an enemy screwing up and letting himself overheat.

Bad hypothetical is, in fact, bad.


As to the idea of changing flamer rules so that they *do* allow a mech to keep another shut down, I don't see the need, no.

Really not sure how else this can be explained gents, give this man a cookie.

[guardian wolf]

SnowDragon, on 27 March 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Really not sure how else this can be explained gents, give this man a cookie.

And a glass of orange juice for all you that don't get the joke right away, here's another hint.
"Church if I die, I want you to have my orange juice,"
For those of you that got it at first, kudos.

[Katalis]

Caballo, on 11 March 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

I think you're wrong, and here's why:

You didn't take in account the fact that the atlas was ALREADY overheated and ALREADY shut down and the attacker don't.

This means the atlas have to dissipate some of it's heat before restarting up. If the flamer heats up the atlas any number of Cº, it will need the time to dissipate that heat, plus the one that comes from it's original overheat. Unless it's got a big bunch of sinks (and in that case it shouldn't overheated itself, but that's just an assumption, the pilot would've made a mistake or just needed to perform an alpha... who knows), the odds are on an ammo explosion.

AAAAAAAAnyway, not as hard core as Scav went, but a little lighter, my idea of the flamers is the following: They should be a persistent mosquito, but not a bullet to the brain, as they become in MW4.

If you are following the Battletech rule book on flamers, you are the one that is wrong. Flamers had two good uses on mechs. To start forest fires to force enemy mechs moving through a forest to run hotter and to kill infantry. When a mech shuts down it flushes the heat that caused the shut down, then the pilot has to go through the start-up process again.

On the other side of that scenario, why are you trying to just keep the mech over heated. There have been documented facts of a mech warrior getting cooked in his cockpit after the mech shut down. So keeping the mech overheated and out of the battle would not be possible. Frying the pilot in his cockpit would.

[Kenyon Burguess]

flamers are in the game. so if your an ***** in an atlas and you overheat to the point you shut down i hope a Firestarter strolls up behind you and makes you "pop". as for abuse, you need to rely on your lancemates to protect you.

[Mattiator]

Flamers should be able to screw with pilots attempting to redline their heat curves, or who are just dumb enough to not put enough heat sinks on their laser boats. They shouldn't be able to keep a competantly-designed (heat wise) 'Mech in perpetual shutdown, barring a 'Mech wielding like 6 of the things. Even a Firestarter shouldn't be able to keep a 'Mech in a perpetual shutdown cycle. Maybe light forests on fire and prevent his opponent from firing that PPC repeatedly.

[JP Josh]

i see flamers having a possibility but heres the thing i see them as a weapon that requires skill, cunning, and guts to use. if your a scout and you riged with flamers then you should run/hide till your lance mates are fighting one on one that's when youd be most effective and should tip the balance in your teams faver. i don't look at flamers as a viable one on one weapon i see them as a support weapon like artillery in WoT. they are useless without other players to be their eyes. with a flamers they should be useless if they don't have lance mates to do heavy punching and take the hitting for them.

flame should be seen as a tool not a weapon but a tool that can wreak a great amount of pain and suffering to a enemy if used correctly.

[Dlardrageth]

JP Josh, on 27 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

i see flamers having a possibility but heres the thing i see them as a weapon that requires skill, cunning, and guts to use. if your a scout and you riged with flamers then you should run/hide till your lance mates are fighting one on one that's when youd be most effective and should tip the balance in your teams faver. i don't look at flamers as a viable one on one weapon i see them as a support weapon like artillery in WoT. they are useless without other players to be their eyes. with a flamers they should be useless if they don't have lance mates to do heavy punching and take the hitting for them.

flame should be seen as a tool not a weapon but a tool that can wreak a great amount of pain and suffering to a enemy if used correctly.

"Flamers favour the bold"? Sounds like a nice slogan!