22 replies to this topic

[Spintonik]

Hi!

As this is my first post, let me stray away for a while. As this game is in BETA, I have decided to give some feedback. I represent a group of four 35+ year old engineers with strong entrepreneur and SW background.

I am sure many things have been said about game balance, gun X and mech X.

What we would like to concentrate on is on UI, storyline and realism. The reason we are worried about this that we have played another IGN games, NFS Shift / NFS Undercover for hundreds of hours. We love those games, but absolutely HATE the Menu structure and UI.

So therefore, my first and last Rant:

Dear UI designer of Mechwarrior Online. If you're the same guy who did UI on IGN NFS games, please resign now. I am sorry, you have no hope.

Concentrate on databases and data protocolls for now on, I am sure you're good at it.

Thank you, that's been on my heart for two years now.



Finally to the subject. Flamers.

First of all, please rename them to "Flame throwers", as flamer has another meaning in modern language - invented after the creation of tabletop game.

Second, flame thrower is a old invention (950 AD China, says WIkipedia), and since that, there's been a general principle, where target is supposed to heat up more than flame thrower itself. as in MWO this is not the case, I suppose you have installed it backwards. Please turn it around.

Flame thrower is not even a hard to make, you just need some napalm or propane in high pressure canister, plastic hose with metal nozzle and a Zippo. Fuel is not burning INSIDE the flame thrower, but outside, so it does not generate heat allmost at all. See this:

http://en.wikipedia....Warsaw_1944.jpg

also:

It should be noted that flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container.

MWO storyline seems to claim that some kind of plasma is ejected from flamethrower. Plasma of what? Plasma is not substance on of itself, but form of a substance. For instance, Laser, is actually plasma form of light, lightning contains air in plasma form and so on. Generating plasma usually requires massive amounts of heat, and propably dissipates quickly.

But from Storyline perspective, if this design is so poor, why use it?


Therefore:

I suggest ditching the Plasma -idea from storyline, and go to flammable gas route. Up the heat caused significantly, drop down the heat caused to own mech. Range is propably ok, from storyline perspective? If you want, you could require "Flame thrower Gas" ammo, and require it to be C.A.S.E'd in order to not blow up. Also, I'd like to hear opinnions, if Flame thrower should occupy ballistic slot, dunno.

And this is how it should look like:

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Vietnam.jpg


Thanks for reading, (and flame on!)

-Mikko

Edited by Spintonik, 28 December 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Elder Thorn]

i agree on the UI, i won't say anything about that guy though, i don't know him, i won't judge him, all i judge is the current UI of MW:O: It sucks.

I don't think there is a need to rename flamers.

I am not a canonrider or anything, but as you, as far as i understand it, criticize the canon way the flamers work, i'd like to add, that, (again) as far as i know, the heat generated in mechs doesn't come from the weapons themself, but from the generator inside the mech, that has to power all those systems at once.

[Byk]

I really like your ideas OP. Switching to a Flamer where it takes ammo seems like a really good idea, along with having the Flamer not generate anywhere near as much heat to your Mech as it does to the target Mech. Have the ammo be combustible or not. If it isn't, when the Mech armor is destroyed and they destroy the Flamer fuel, have it leak and slowly drain the ammo for the Flamer over time, or just outright drop it to zero if the fuel gets completely destroyed.

[Spintonik]

Byk, on 28 December 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

I really like your ideas OP. Switching to a Flamer where it takes ammo seems like a really good idea, along with having the Flamer not generate anywhere near as much heat to your Mech as it does to the target Mech. Have the ammo be combustible or not. If it isn't, when the Mech armor is destroyed and they destroy the Flamer fuel, have it leak and slowly drain the ammo for the Flamer over time, or just outright drop it to zero if the fuel gets completely destroyed.

Perhaps the leaked flamer ammo could catch fire? That would be cool, I'd love to see my gunhit to turn opponent mech into walking pillar of fire. And would also bring interesting ways to punish guys trying to boat flamers

[-6IX-]

Excellent suggestion

[Tremor]

The Flamers of the Mechwarrior universe do not require fuel, as they draw directly from an active 'mechs fusion reactor. The 'Plasma' is just the form of immense amount of energy exiting the weapon. This link provides more info.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Flamer

With that said, I agree that flamers should be more useful. Heating yourself more than enemy is kind of silly. If this isn't fixed, the weapon should at least do more damage (or at least more damage to internals).

[Spintonik]

Tremor, on 28 December 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

The Flamers of the Mechwarrior universe do not require fuel, as they draw directly from an active 'mechs fusion reactor. The 'Plasma' is just the form of immense amount of energy exiting the weapon. This link provides more info.

Hi Tremor, thanks for your reply.

Altough I respect the MW heritage, my clear intention in this discussion is to bring up storyline -related matters, that seem to conflict with common sense, common knowledge from laws of physics and (sometimes with) playability.

Back in 1980's, when I played MW tabletop, I was a teenager. Idea about some kind of "energy channel" from fusion reactor, which could be used to shoot fiery-anger-of-the-sun -hot plasma on top of infantry sounds very very cool from my ex-teen me perspective.

Now it sounds like a silly idea, massive radiation problem, ***** to engineer and maintain, when you just could do equally much heat to the opponent with propane tank and a plastic hose. (and do not cause heat to yourself).

I realize there are plenty of MW enthusiasts, that come back to the world they love. But IGN is a company, tries to make their living with this product, and this is why they need to get plenty of new players to MWo. That's why we should "kill our darlings" a bit, and iron out illogical matters from storyline and gameplay.
I am glad we agree on playability part.

What is your view in graphics - does flamer output look like "fiery hot plasma" to you? To me, I just see flames from burning fuel.

-Mikko

[Tremor]

No problem. While I agree that there are some fundamental flaws in a world where there are giant walking machines of warefare, I still disagree with certain aspects of your argument.

While Flame Thrower fuel is not nearly as dangerous as many movies and games portrayed it as being, it is still fuel and runs the risk of detonating.. Also, Flame Throwers utilizing fuel have a limited supply of ammunition. Neither of these are an issue with Flamers in lore.

In addition to this point, we would have to assume that Flamethrower fire is just as, or more effective, than a form of plasma energy expelled from a fusion reactor.

Personally, I really like the Flamer graphics. However, I imagine liquid Flame Throwers spewing flame barrages that then burn whatever target the fuel lands on, instead of just a offensive bout of harmful energy/fire/whatever it is we have now.

This all said, I remain persistent in my belief that Flamers remain unchained except for the way in which they operate. More damage/heat/efficiency is required for Flamers to ever really see use in the game.

[Tickdoff Tank]

The reason flamers cause more heat for the mech firing them than the mech being hit is game balance. They do not want the attacking mech to be able to "stun lock" and enemy. In this case it would be by being able to keep an enemy mech overheated for the entire match (or to make the enemy mech blow up by overheating) with little risk to the attacking mech.

That said, the flamers really do need some help. But, the devs already know this and it is being worked on.

From Paul: Flamers... who hates flamers? I hate flamers... the engineering behind this needs to be reworked to get them to a place where I'm happy with their performance. Again, working with the programmers to get this working and will update when I can.

http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/ (it is at the bottom of the next to last post)

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 29 December 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[Zinitiate]

The flamer shouldn't need fuel, because it gets it's fuel from the fusion reaction in the reactor.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Flamer

Spintonik, on 28 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

MWO storyline seems to claim that some kind of plasma is ejected from flamethrower. Plasma of what? Plasma is not substance on of itself, but form of a substance. For instance, Laser, is actually plasma form of light, lightning contains air in plasma form and so on. Generating plasma usually requires massive amounts of heat, and propably dissipates quickly.

To answer your question bluntly: Plasma of hydrogen (or helium). As explained in the following link, the mechs use a hydrogen fusion reaction to produce power. So I think its safe to assume that the 'plasma' is hydrogen or helium plasma from the fusion reaction.

http://www.sarna.net...#Fusion_Engines

That being said, I suggested in a different post that flamers should dissipate heat from the mech, not generate it. If you think about it logically, energy is being released, not added, so the overall temperature of the mech should go down. I think this would make the flamers a more viable option to players, since they could, in essence transfer heat to an enemy mech. It should have a cooldown though, otherwise it would make heat sinks irrelevant.

[Zinitiate]

Also on the subject of realism, if you want to be completely realistic, you wouldn't even have battletech to begin with. Think about it, FTL travel, Myomer, Fusion reactors,.

[General Taskeen]

Flamers were actually somewhat effective (and did damage!) in MW3. Boating them required lots of heatsinks.

Flamer MW3 weapon stat:

Range 120m
Heat Per Shot 2.5
Damage Per Shot 5 (+5 Heat Transfer on target)
Cooldown/Recycle Time 1 second

Some derivative of this would make it fine in MWO.

Edited by General Taskeen, 29 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Let's examine a 'Mech based around the concept of how flamers are meant to be used: the FS9-H Firestarter.

Quote

The Firestarter was rarely attached to a lance, but rather was assigned to a company or regiment. The commander would deploy the 'Mech to support an attack group or to scout wooded terrain.

Though a real threat to light 'Mechs, a Firestarter can do little against the formidable armor and weaponry of medium and heavy opponents. It was the ability to set fires that made the FS9 so valuable. Skillfully placed blazes could rout enemy forces, break lines, and corner 'Mechs. A whole series of tactics was developed around creating and spreading wildfires. Firestarter pilots are particularly fond of setting dense woods afire while enemy 'Mechs are advancing through them and of igniting buildings that are sheltering enemy units. If an engagement is lost, a Firstarter could create fire and smoke to cover a retreat and to hamper pursuit.

The Firestarter also works well as a scout. Its speed and armor give it good protection in the field. Not only could it map terrain as it traveled, but it could also clear away wooded areas that the enemy might use as defensive positions or for an ambush.

The Firestarter also carried out scorched earth missions in the early days of the Succession Wars. In recent decades, as armies attempt to capture and hold targets intact, scorched earth has become an extremely rare policy. It is only used when even long-term victory is impossible or when the target is too valuable to fall into enemy hands.

Also, from the Sarna page:

Quote

The Firestarter was traditionally assigned at the company level instead of the lance level. The reason for this would seem to be that the 'Mech has such a specialized role that it is useless to assign it to lances. This changed in the later Succession Wars as it was found that the Firestarter performed well in the scout role, as it could start fires to prevent an enemy from attempting to follow through the inferno it could leave in its wake, and it could also clear areas for the advancement of friendly forces.

(Emphasis mine)

A flamer-boat like the Firestarter is valuable not because it can (necessarily) run up to other 'Mechs and roast them into shutdown or ammo explosions (a tactic that the BT creators seem to have actively wanted to discourage by making heat delivered to the firing 'Mech higher than heat delivered to the target), but as a harasser and area-denial unit, performing such functions as:
- setting the environment (woods, buildings) around an enemy unit ablaze, trapping them in an inferno
- setting fire to buildings, causing them to collapse (for example, to bring a flaming building down on top of a group of enemy 'Mechs)
- shutting down (and/or cooking-off the ammo of) already hot-running enemy units
- flushing out enemy units in hiding (by setting fire to the woods and buildings in which they're hidden)
- dispensing with enemy support units (infantry and vehicles) while an enemy's 'Mech forces are otherwise engaged
- delivering heat to enemy 'Mechs from the flanks and rear while said enemy is engaged with an allied 'Mech
- using fires to confuse enemies and enemy weapons (heat-seeking warheads) relying on thermal sensors
- creating smoke screens or using the smoke as a signal
- clearing paths through woods and cities for friendly units' advance
- covering friendly units' retreat (by setting fire to pathways and bridges after they've passed)
- implementing scorched-earth strategies

In short, the flamers are not so much outright weapons as versatile tools that can also be used as weapons under the right circumstances (as determined by the players' situation and the environment).

Also, from the CBT Master Rules:

Quote

The typical flame thrower carried by ’Mechs taps into the heat generated by the fusion reactor to create a powerful but short-ranged burst of fire. These weapons are rarely mounted on ’Mechs due to their poor heat-to-damage ratio, but they can be useful incendiary weapons.

Under normal circumstances, a flamer does not cause heat damage to a target.
However, if all players agree, they may choose (each time the unit fires) to add 2 to the target BattleMech’s Heat Scale for that turn as a result of the flamer attack, rather than doing 2 points of damage.

The so-called vehicle flamer uses ammunition supplied by fuel in tanks rather than tapping into the fusion reactor. As such, it is considered a ballistic rather than energy weapon.
This means vehicles need not mount heat sinks to dissipate the heat generated by vehicle flamers, making them ideal weapons for use on internal combustion-powered units. Despite the weapon’s name, BattleMechs may also mount this type of flamer, but they must accommodate the heat generated by firing the weapon using heat sinks in the usual way.

Besides sounding rather odd...
If flamers really need a "buff" to appear/be more useful/attractive (by playing up the weapon aspect of its nature), one plausible and (IMO) reasonable way to do so would be to make it a "two-fer" - that is, a flamer can be made to deliver both damage and heat to a target, while still being balanced (read: more difficult to abuse) by it's flaws (relatively high heat to the firing 'Mech, short effective range).
Also, players could be allowed the choice between the higher-heat, infinite-use "standard flamer" and the lower-heat, finite-use, ammo-explosion-risking "vehicle flamer".

Your thoughts?

[DashFire61]

Tickdoff Tank, on 29 December 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

The reason flamers cause more heat for the mech firing them than the mech being hit is game balance. They do not want the attacking mech to be able to "stun lock" and enemy. In this case it would be by being able to keep an enemy mech overheated for the entire match (or to make the enemy mech blow up by overheating) with little risk to the attacking mech.

That said, the flamers really do need some help. But, the devs already know this and it is being worked on.

From Paul: Flamers... who hates flamers? I hate flamers... the engineering behind this needs to be reworked to get them to a place where I'm happy with their performance. Again, working with the programmers to get this working and will update when I can.

http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/ (it is at the bottom of the next to last post)

well, since they get the fuel from engine heat once the engine heat is desipated it no longer fires, easy fix.

[Tremor]

The Flamer fix very well may involve implementation of destructible environments. Burning trees and buildings could very well conceal troop movements and act as a hazard.

Personally, my fix for Flamers and Machine Guns is simple. Allow these weapons to deal increased damage to internals. In this way, these two weapons will find meaning and use. Coupled with destructible environments, and you have a use for Flamers and Machine Guns that don't break the game and without making them super common.

[Szaesse]

The fact that machine guns and flamers are in games like MWO (or any previous MW title, for that matter) is almost entirely based on the fact that they are in TT. The problem is, none of the MW titles to date have given an effective use for them. In TT, they were primarily used for anti-infantry weapons. Basically backup weapons used specifically for dealing with pesky gro-pos who might try to attach a shaped charge to your mechs legs while you walk by, or fire infantry weapons at you. While typically bee stings by comparison, a large enough number of hits could cause a mech problems (portable PPC units, for example, could whittle down your armor over time).
Since none of these games have infantry units of any kind (not even battle armor, unless you count the MW4 mechpaks, and that was only in multiplayer mode), flamers and machine guns have little apparent use.

If you could get dynamic terrain, which would allow you to light buildings/forests on fire, flamers may have a use in this game. However, unless there is some plan for including infantry of some kind (possibly in the form of AI controlled soldiers included in CW games), machine guns might as well just be removed outright, or left simply as a "backup" weapon that you fall back on only when you need to keep damage going while waiting for heat bleed-off.

[cmopatrick]

i have to agree with some of the comments above: both weapons were anti-infantry and i see little chance that they will be implemented. it is possible that they are anticipating pve or coop missions, so that might be why they are in right now, but otherwise, it is a mindless preservation of canon to promote the grind (since we need multiple variants to raise experience).

i understand the OP, but if we want to talk realism... the whole BT universe is easy to quash, if only on engineering terms (not to mention several physics matters). exhibit a: try turning even an exceptionally top heavy 30 ton vehicle at only 50kph in a tight radius (say 180 degrees in less than 100 meters)... much less one that weighs 100 tons or is moving at 100kph. if you can come up with a means, the trucking industry will make you rich.... and a tractor trailer's profile and center of gravity is a LOT lower than a 'Mech. need i continue?

my point is that just as we propose small unit tactics as the model for planetary warfare, in combat platforms that mount high energy particle beams (but which don't travel at the nls that by definition they should) and equally high energy lasers that would require vast computer power to develop but we can't even use them with 1990s tech computer assisted 100% accuracy at incredibly short relative ranges... well, is there a point in changing them for "realism"?

btw, i would submit that the concept of a flame thrower is more fairly be dated further back to the "greek fire" the Byzantine navy used to great effect, with dates in the mid to late seventh century (earlier versions of related flame spouting devices that might qualify as flame throwersmay date back even to BC, and that is not considering lit ballistic materials).

Edited by cmopatrick, 29 December 2012 - 11:14 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Szaesse, on 29 December 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

The problem is, none of the MW titles to date have given an effective use for them.

False. I give you MW3.

[Tremor]

Also, MW3 campaign featured Elemental Battle Armor.

[SilkTopHat]

I'll offer my thoughts. Spintonik, my goal here is not to make a personal attack, but use your posts as a framework for rebuttal.

Spintonik, on 28 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Second, flame thrower is a old invention (950 AD China, says WIkipedia), and since that, there's been a general principle, where target is supposed to heat up more than flame thrower itself. as in MWO this is not the case, I suppose you have installed it backwards. Please turn it around.

A significant difference exists between flamethrowers that exist and those detailed in MWO. Real, military-style flamethrowers fling flammable fluid and ignite it, allowing the chemical potential energy in the fuel to be converted to heat at the target (link). On the other hand, flamers as described in the BattleTech universe are essentially plasma jets; they vent nuclear reaction fuel from the fusion reactor through a series of magnetic tubes to the outside air (link). Because the heat source of the plasma is the reactor, the further it becomes removed from the reactor core the more it will lose heat to thermal radiation. Thus, the hottest temperature that the flamer plasma ever achieves must be inside the attacking 'mech's core - not at the target.

Spintonik, on 28 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Flame thrower is not even a hard to make, you just need some napalm or propane in high pressure canister, plastic hose with metal nozzle and a Zippo. Fuel is not burning INSIDE the flame thrower, but outside, so it does not generate heat allmost at all. See this:

Cited temperatures: napalm burns at 800 - 1 500 C (link), propane burns at just under 2 000 C (link1, link2), fusion reactor temperatures (in current technology!) are 10⁸ C (link1, link2).

Spintonik, on 28 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

MWO storyline seems to claim that some kind of plasma is ejected from flamethrower. Plasma of what? Plasma is not substance on of itself, but form of a substance.

The plasma likely consists of deuterium and tritium, the common fuel used in man-made nuclear fusion (link).

Spintonik, on 28 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

For instance, Laser, is actually plasma form of light, lightning contains air in plasma form and so on. Generating plasma usually requires massive amounts of heat, and propably dissipates quickly.

Plasma ... form of light? High-intensity lasers can create plasma (link), but are quite surely beams of cohesive eletromagnetic radiation (link).

Spintonik, on 28 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Also, I'd like to hear opinnions, if Flame thrower should occupy ballistic slot, dunno.

Flamers are probably grouped with beam weapons because they use no conventional ammunition and the heat sink arrangement required to cool a weapon of that type is similar to a laser or PPC.

Spintonik, on 29 December 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

Now it sounds like a silly idea, massive radiation problem, ***** to engineer and maintain, when you just could do equally much heat to the opponent with propane tank and a plastic hose. (and do not cause heat to yourself).

Because of the special conditions required for fusion to occur, it is likely that fusion reactions would cease as soon as the plasma was vented from the reactor. Shielding the lines running from the reactor to the weapon nozzle would probably provide adequate protection in the meanwhile.

Devices meant to store or transport plasma don't ever touch the plasma itself. Being essentially a soup of charged particles, all plasmas respond to magnetic fields, and as such, it's likely that simple solenoids are all that would be required to both potect the 'mechs internal mechanisms from the plasma and accelerate the plasma out of the attacking 'mech.

We've already visited the chemical fuel versus nuclear fuel subject.

Zinitiate, on 29 December 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

That being said, I suggested in a different post that flamers should dissipate heat from the mech, not generate it. If you think about it logically, energy is being released, not added, so the overall temperature of the mech should go down. I think this would make the flamers a more viable option to players, since they could, in essence transfer heat to an enemy mech. It should have a cooldown though, otherwise it would make heat sinks irrelevant.

Heat generated in a 'mechs weapons, actuators, and such is not associated with the heat from the reactor. While not a canonical source, this post provides a lot of relevant conjectures.

In summary, while I agree that the Flamers need some serious work for the sake of balancing, I do feel that their plasma jet construction is appropriate.