47 replies to this topic

[Product9]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

It would be a one minute read, at tops. Assuming one is properly literate, one can read orders of magnitude faster than one can talk.

A video has much more staying power than a forum post, and a much better chance at effecting change. It takes next to no effort to make a text entry, but Tuesday put real energy into producing the video and I applaud him for it.

If you wanted a text-based version you could have politely asked him for it. You didn't have to insult him or his generation with a passive-aggressive attack on those who don't absorb information the same way you do, and frankly I think you owe him an apology.

1453 R, on 21 February 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

I think one of the things Wintersdark is getting at is that A.) you can't watch a YT video between calls at work, or in the field somewhere, or in a number of places where a well-organized text read is perfectly fine, and B.) not everybody has the attention to devote to a twelve-minute YT video before they get into discussing a subject.

Considering how much time is spent waiting for the matchmaker, or walking across Polar Highlands, I don't think anybody who plays MWO is hurting for time so much they can't take a few minutes to watch a quality video.

If you don't like videos as a medium then that's on you. There isn't any justifiable reason to make it known to others how much you dislike them, especially when people like Fantastic Tuesday bring much needed attention to this relatively obscure game.

Not that I'm trying to pick a fight or anything with you, 1453 R. I'm just trying to make a case for the other side here. I wouldn't say that gamers are moving away from text-based mediums, but rather games are able to reach more people now because of the multi-media aspects associated with them. Different people prefer different things, and there isn't anything wrong with that. Personally, I prefer to get my information a variety of ways (reading, watching, listening, playing...) and greatly appreciate the content creators in the community. If not for them I would have probably left the game ages ago.


Tuesday, I agree with you. A simpler solution would be better than the convoluted one we have, and your ideas have real merit. Unfortunately, given PGI's track record with things like jump-sniping and heat scaling, given two choices they will most likely go with the more complicated one.

I look forward to more of your videos, both the funny and informative ones. Keep up the good work!

Edited by Product9, 22 February 2016 - 03:42 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Product9, on 22 February 2016 - 12:56 AM, said:

A video has much more staying power than a forum post, and a much better chance at effecting change. It takes next to no effort to make a text entry, but Tuesday put real energy into producing the video and I applaud him for it.

If you wanted a text-based version you could have politely asked him for it. You didn't have to insult him or his generation with a passive-aggressive attack on those who don't absorb information the same way you do, and frankly I think you owe him an apology.

I'm old. That entitles me to passive aggressively attack his generation. Just like the previous generation did to me, and his will to the next. It's always frustrating and depressing to watch people being ever less capable of absorbing information.

Now, that's (mostly) in jest. However, I'll point out: He didn't seem particularly willing to add a text based version (despite it obviously being easier and faster, given his OP:

Fantastic Tuesday, on 21 February 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

If that interested you (either positively or negatively), be sure to watch the video before engaging in a discussion here. It's very self-contained and covers everything you need to know about my argument. I will be able to tell that you haven't watched and I will tell you to watch the damn video. xx

Quote

Considering how much time is spent waiting for the matchmaker, or walking across Polar Highlands, I don't think anybody who plays MWO is hurting for time so much they can't take a few minutes to watch a quality video.

You don't understand, at all. But yeah, people who play MWO *ARE* hurting for time that much. I get maybe 4, 5 matches per day, most days. And that's if I elect to play MWO, and not XCOM, Fallout 4, or whatever else I may be playing at the time. Raising a family is a tremendous amount of work, and it's something that pretty much everybody does at some point in their lives (and lasts for many, many years, so it's a state people find themselves in for a very long time). So time at the desktop can be very limited for a very large number of people.

Someone can spend time on the forums while unable to play. I know a great many of us get our forum warrioring in at work, on breaks, during errands, etc, all times where videos are simply not possible to watch. This is often where the irritability at the current youth's video obsession comes in, as they lack things like time constraints and responsibilities, then assume everyone has time to drop 15-30 minutes watching a video. It's an even mix of jealousy (we do remember what it was like to be young and have all the time in the world) and irritation at to obliviousness to how difficult it is to get that time.

Quote

If you don't like videos as a medium then that's on you. There isn't any justifiable reason to make it known to others how much you dislike them, especially when people like Fantastic Tuesday bring much needed attention to this relatively obscure game.

If he'd done both, I'd not have been bitchy about the whole thing. But this here is a forum. This is a text based medium, it's where we discuss things in text. That's how it works. I took a measure of exception to how he presented it. I realise he didn't mean offense by it, but it's still somewhat annoying for someone to make a post here, refuse to simply state his opinion, and demand that chunk of time.


To be clear, yeah, it's awesome, take the time you want to make the content you want. There's nothing wrong with that, and it is indeed a good thing. Videos are great. But when you take the time to make a post on a forum, linking to a video and then telling people to just watch the video rather than (as you said yourself) simply, additionally, adding a bit of text, well, it's irritating. So, expect old, grouchy folk like me to be old, grouchy folk. He's basically posted this, then said "Ha! You can't watch the video? Just go away!" in a place where people come expecting to be able to read content.

Bah. Get off my lawn.

[Bud Crue]

Much like some others have posted I didn't watch the OP's video since I only run flamers on mechs that should have them from a character perspective (e.g. if you call a mech the "Flame" or Firestarter of "Firebrand", then that mech is going to have flamers. I don't care if said flamers are OP, meta, utterly useless, or somewhere in between. All I know is that some mechs ought to have em, and in my roster they do. That said, I can also tell you that if I get close in my "Flame" or "Firebrand" I can still manage to heat lock my target without too much trouble, and that more often than not one of my target's buddies kills me for my effort (except when one of my buddies kills them first).

TLDR: I don't have time for videos. Flamers are fine now, and I thought they were fine before. I just don't care about flamers. Adapt.

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 21 February 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

I think one of the things Wintersdark is getting at is that A.) you can't watch a YT video between calls at work, or in the field somewhere, or in a number of places where a well-organized text read is perfectly fine, and B.) not everybody has the attention to devote to a twelve-minute YT video before they get into discussing a subject.

Now, I get that some people prefer videos (and also prefer directing forum people to artificially inflating their YT channel viewer counts, but that's probably just me being cynical) and some people prefer text. Really, I do. I strongly prefer text with short video examples if necessary to "Watch my new YT video", but I also understand that in this particular day and age especially, the Youtube/Twitch culture is very strong and more and more gamers are discarding text mediums. That and some people really do just prefer to listen instead of read.

I get all that, I do. I see where you're coming from, Tuesday. And I'll watch your video when I can find the opportunity...but I would've been able to talk to your actual point more quickly and more efficiently if you'd included a written synopsis, as well. Heh, this is the BattleTech™ fanbase you're talking to. Walls of text are, in fact, sort of our thing.

This, much better said and with less admittedly needless hostility and disgruntlement than mine.

[Otto Cannon]

I'm sure it's a good video, but I'll never watch videos as long as people talk more slowly than I read.

[Product9]

Wintersdark, on 22 February 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

You don't understand, at all.

I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't understand. What you do with your time is your business, not mine or the content creators'. If you don't have time to participate in media because of your life decisions, that is on nobody but you.

If you don't like videos, then don't reply to a thread about a video. Just say to yourself "oh, this isn't for me" and then move on. There is no reason to reply to a thread just so you can express how unhappy you are with said thread. That's not conducive to fostering a healthy community, and is at best self-indulgent.

[Bud Crue]

Product9, on 22 February 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

There is no reason to reply to a thread just so you can express how unhappy you are with said thread. That's not conducive to fostering a healthy community, and is at best self-indulgent.

Oh you beautiful angel. Surely you aren't this naive?

Self-indulgent responses and total hijacks of the OP's topic are far more the norms of these forums than the presence of threads where people stay on topic and try to have reasoned discussions, which focus on "fostering a healthy community". The later being so rare that when it actually occurs, many will take the time to post about what an amazing occurrence it is!
Sorry, but but get use to self-indulgent, provocatively obtuse, and out right pointlessness posts from a lot of folks.

Gotta armor up in this place.

[TexAce]

Fantastic Tuesday, on 21 February 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

Clearly you weren't one of my victims this week.

I got enough victims myself, and I like it. Get off your high mom.

Edited by TexAce, 22 February 2016 - 08:21 AM.

[MechaBattler]

If you don't have "time" for a video or simply cannot from where you are. Just don't watch it. Why does people feel the need to derail the thread with their manifesto on why videos are bad?

I did watch the video. And agree with the idea of a fuel gauge of sorts. It's simple and visually effective at delivering to players the information they need. However I think the weapon shouldn't get a damage boost. Personally I think it should stay a niche weapon. But that's just me.

[Lily from animove]

Fantastic Tuesday, on 21 February 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

Tl;dw:

Flamers aren't OP now. They are just very unfair in 1v1 while being a bit rubbish in everything else. They aren't as much fun to use as they should be and you often feel like you aren't achieving anything.

Solution: give flamers a duration and cooldown, like lasers, and a recharging ammo pool that prevents boating and increases their burst effectiveness. The ability to dump 20 heat into a mech with a trigger pull will turn flamers into fearsome shock weapons that throw their target off balance while losing their current ability to stunlock.

If that interested you (either positively or negatively), be sure to watch the video before engaging in a discussion here. It's very self-contained and covers everything you need to know about my argument. I will be able to tell that you haven't watched and I will tell you to watch the damn video. xx

Yes I wish they would work like the pusle lasers of MW3, a auge that depletes when using them, after this they need to recharge first before being able to be shot again.

But guess we only get "simple fixes" that nevr cure the porblems just bandaid fix them.

Edited by Lily from animove, 22 February 2016 - 08:35 AM.

[1453 R]

MechaBattler, on 22 February 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

If you don't have "time" for a video or simply cannot from where you are. Just don't watch it. Why does people feel the need to derail the thread with their manifesto on why videos are bad?

I did watch the video. And agree with the idea of a fuel gauge of sorts. It's simple and visually effective at delivering to players the information they need. However I think the weapon shouldn't get a damage boost. Personally I think it should stay a niche weapon. But that's just me.

Being fair, I was mostly trying to present a neutral version of Wintersdark's point, minus his old-man grouch. And Tuesday did sort of invite this sort of response when his original post stated quite clearly: "Didn't watch the video? F*** off don't talk to me." That sort of thing is going to get a rise out of people, especially when a lot of us do get our forumwarrioring in at places where YT is contraindicated. If a Youtube content creator is going to reach out to an old, cranky, entrenched-in-its-ways userbase like this one, he's going to need to deal with its quirks as much as we have to deal with his if he wants to talk to us.

Now, I don't have time to blow on Youtube this morning, not really, but I will nevertheless go watch the damned thing right now regardless, if that's what it takes to get this sorted out. However, I'm hoping that Tuesday can take this as learning for the future. Trust me, this is not the first time I've seen a thread with good ideas in it knocked off course by what amounts to formatting issues. It's intensely frustrating, and I sympathize with it, but aggressively telling people who don't have the time/opportunity to watch his twelve-minute video to f** off forever is not going to earn the man any friends.

Anyways. Off to see what all the big hootinany hullabaloo is about. Perhaps I'll write a synopsis for it later when I free up a few moments.

[pbiggz]

Good video.

Flamers are certainly lacking the tactile feedback they once had. Honestly if they chose an implementation closer to mechwarrior 3/4 where flamers fired a projectile that dealt heat damage you would think that would work better, and be simpler, but here I am just happy the weapon works now.

[VonRunnegen]

MechaBattler, on 22 February 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

If you don't have "time" for a video or simply cannot from where you are. Just don't watch it. Why does people feel the need to derail the thread with their manifesto on why videos are bad?

I did watch the video. And agree with the idea of a fuel gauge of sorts. It's simple and visually effective at delivering to players the information they need. However I think the weapon shouldn't get a damage boost. Personally I think it should stay a niche weapon. But that's just me.

Maybe he's not trying to derail the thread but is rather interested in the problem, but is in a position like many of us where text-based beats video. Like, if we were discussing it on a text-based forum, where we can quote relevant parts, discuss things in detail, read quickly, read without sound, read in bits between other tasks (yes, you can watch videos in this way, but it's much harder)

The idea sounds reasonable but to ask for a text description when on a forum is not unreasonable and getting it may enable others to get involved and push the idea. Having gone to the effort of making it of course link it, but to make the video I suspect he already wrote down his thoughts so sharing it in text form would be appreciated too.

I'll try to find time to watch it when I'm home...

Edited by VonRunnegen, 22 February 2016 - 08:59 AM.

[1453 R]

All right. Watched the video. I will be endeavoring to write up a synopsis when I get a chance, though unfortunately I cannot do so quite yet. If Tuesday is still monitoring this thread and wishes to do so himself, let me know and I'll let be.

[Black Rabbit of Inle]

Could we also add they look like something off the PS1...

[Wintersdark]

Product9, on 22 February 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't understand. What you do with your time is your business, not mine or the content creators'. If you don't have time to participate in media because of your life decisions, that is on nobody but you.

If you don't like videos, then don't reply to a thread about a video. Just say to yourself "oh, this isn't for me" and then move on. There is no reason to reply to a thread just so you can express how unhappy you are with said thread. That's not conducive to fostering a healthy community, and is at best self-indulgent.

As I said above - I'm aware I was needlessly hostile about the whole deal. I was so as a result of how the OP presented it (Watch video or don't discuss the issue at all, when ultimately the video was and is unnecessary to convey the information) but I do agree it was overdone, and for that I apologize.

With that said, the root of the irritation here is that I'm actually quite interested in the topic at hand and would like to discuss it. The OP, however, was being needlessly exclusive in the process: something that's also harmful to fostering a healthy community. While not being as much of an *** about it as I was, he's doing exactly the same thing (Oh, you don't have time/cannot watch a video? Go away!) He's doing it unintentionally, though, because (and this is a part of why I did post what I posted) he's assuming people who don't watch are in the same boat as those "TLDR" folks who don't read a post but feel they ought to reply to it anyways. Except, being a text forum, one should expect text posts here. Video accompaniment is fine - excellent, even. But coming to a text based forum and TLDRing posts is pretty stupid. Don't want to read a post, stay out of a text based forum. You certainly won't see me commenting "TLDW" on YouTube.

[Fantastic Tuesday]

1453 R, on 22 February 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

All right. Watched the video. I will be endeavoring to write up a synopsis when I get a chance, though unfortunately I cannot do so quite yet. If Tuesday is still monitoring this thread and wishes to do so himself, let me know and I'll let be.

Thank you very much for the offer! Don't worry yourself though, I'll have one written up in a few hours when I get off the road. I was originally planning to include a write up but was unable to get one done in time. I barely finished the video before I had to start travelling 300 miles for work.

Nonetheless the write up was always going to be a truncated version of the video, with me insisting that watching the video is compulsory to fully understanding my argument. I prefer this for a variety of reasons but primarily because: compared to text, it's a lot harder to skim-read a video and come to a completey false understanding of the video and make an inane and irrelevant comment that derails the thread.

Look how well that turned out.

This video has had an overwhelmingly positive response from the OutreachHPG subreddit and on YouTube. I implore you to just watch the video, but in a few hours I will provide a written alternative. I do imagine this might also make it more accessible to the developers. So there's that.

Please. No more discussions about text vs video. The request was made and will be fullfilled. It's now irrelevant.

[Product9]

Wintersdark, on 22 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

As I said above - I'm aware I was needlessly hostile about the whole deal. I was so as a result of how the OP presented it (Watch video or don't discuss the issue at all, when ultimately the video was and is unnecessary to convey the information) but I do agree it was overdone, and for that I apologize.

I can't speak for Tuesday, but I appreciate this. In the spirit of moving forward allow me to apologize if anything I said was offensive.

Wintersdark, on 22 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

The OP, however, was being needlessly exclusive in the process: something that's also harmful to fostering a healthy community. While not being as much of an *** about it as I was, he's doing exactly the same thing (Oh, you don't have time/cannot watch a video? Go away!) He's doing it unintentionally, though, because (and this is a part of why I did post what I posted) he's assuming people who don't watch are in the same boat as those "TLDR" folks who don't read a post but feel they ought to reply to it anyways. Except, being a text forum, one should expect text posts here. Video accompaniment is fine - excellent, even. But coming to a text based forum and TLDRing posts is pretty stupid. Don't want to read a post, stay out of a text based forum. You certainly won't see me commenting "TLDW" on YouTube.

To be fair, Tuesday did offer to create a text-based version.

Fantastic Tuesday, on 21 February 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

I get it, you want a written version. I'll write one up for you tomorrow when it isn't 1 AM.

This whole thing could have probably been avoided with some tact on both sides of the argument.

1453 R, on 22 February 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

And Tuesday did sort of invite this sort of response when his original post stated quite clearly: "Didn't watch the video? F*** off don't talk to me."

I don't recall him saying that at all. You are using quotation marks, so it might make some readers think you are actually quoting the man.

1453 R, on 22 February 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I'm hoping that Tuesday can take this as learning for the future.

Just hope he doesn't lean to avoid you guys. You may be killing your own fandom with your inflexibility.

EDIT:

Fantastic Tuesday, on 22 February 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

Please. No more discussions about text vs video. The request was made and will be fullfilled. It's now irrelevant.

Did see your post till after I posted this post on the post. I guess we'll put it to bed, then.

Edited by Product9, 22 February 2016 - 10:12 AM.

[1453 R]

Figures I only see Tuesday's reply after I post this up. CURSE YOU FORUM LAG. Anyways. Leaving it here for posterity since I wrote it anyways, but yeah.

OKAY. Here we go:

Introduction
Flamers are, for the first time in the history of MWO, actually an option people are equipping on their ‘Mech for more than senseless lulz. That’s awesome! All due props to Piranha for finally doing something to make Flamers even conceptually attractive, and this video is not in any way bashing Piranha for Doing Bad Job. That said…we’re not there yet. Much like LRMs, Flamers are poorly balanced – they’re broken to the point of unfairness in singleton 1v1 duels, but are almost worthless in larger conflicts, mostly due to underlying mechanical issues with how they work. With two relatively simple changes, Tuesday believes flamers can be made into a much more engaging weapon which is fairer, more easily communicated to both player and target, and just more fun.

Breakdown
Tuesday breaks flamers down into initially two, eventually four categories. Realizing I am posting this from memory between calls at work, forgive the paraphrase. That said:

Good:
-Outrageous heat damage. For the first time since inception, flamers actually shoot fire. They are, in at least one way, Doing Their Job.
-Minimal self-heat generation for five seconds. The first five seconds are basically free.

Bad:
-Null damage. The 0.01 ticks or whatever it is the Flamer does now are the tokenest of tokens, probably just there so the weapon can generate hitmarker tics on your crosshairs
-Unable to do a damn thing past 90% target heat. They don’t slow down dissipation, they don’t deal extra damage, they don’t do anything to a target on 90% or greater heat outside of hold it at 90% heat.
-Extremely opaque. Flamers offer very poor feedback to the player, who has no way of knowing the weapons are doing their job at all until/unless the target shuts down. They don’t communicate well, to either user or target.

Ugly:
-No boating penalties. In fact, the current system encourages boating as carrying multiple flamers is about the only way to gain any use from them whatsoever in larger fights.

Nonsense:
-The exponential heat scalar penalty system. The video had an amusing segment where a description of how the system worked devolved into three different voice tracks played over snippets of Satanic chanting while patch notes fly by the screen…which basically indicates that the only reason players know how Flamers work is because patch notes told them. The system is far more egregiously, obnoxiously complicated and weird than Ghost Heat, for significantly less purpose. It is almost impossible to figure out through gameplay alone how flamers work; you need to’ve either read the patch notes or asked on the forum to have a clue, and that is just not great game design.

The Solution
Tuesday proposes, primarily, a two-part solution to the issues plaguing flamers, along the lines of the relatively common forum suggestions to turn the Flamer into a burstfire weapon. He proposes a burn time and cooldown period, the same as laser-class weaponry, with an example numbers set of 2s burn time and 3s cooldown. Using the existing ~4 heat per second as the baseline for flamer heat damage and a 5s total refire time for a single flamer, Tuesday’s system would have the Flamer deal 20 heat damage over its 2s burn time.

To control boating, a regenerating ammo system is put into effect as well. The proposed numbers (for demonstration purposes only, not a hard-and-fast guide) were a 100-point pool of Flamer Fuel, with every flamer shot costing 25 points of that pool, and with the pool regenerating 2.5 points per second. Multiple flamers allow for a larger single-shot burst of heat, but will take commensurately longer to regenerate for another such large burst, while taking a single Flamer allows one to fire the weapon more often than if one gangs four flamers up and uses them as a group. Important to note is that no way is given in the video to increase this fuel allotment for Flamers – you cannot add extra tons of ammo. You get 100 points at 2.5 points of regen a second and that is it.

The intent is to turn Flamers from a face-tanking stunlocking derpstick which is actively unfair in duels but suicidally bad in group engagements into something which is more of an interrupt/disruption than a stunlock mechanic, but which also allows the player to contribute much more effectively in large-scale fights. You’re effectively trading off overall heat-per-second damage (the suggested numbers seriously reduce the Flamer’s long-term effectiveness, limiting flamer heat damage to 2hps across all flamers on a ‘Mech, regardless of flamer count) for front-loaded heat spikes you can inflict more-or-less at will while your fuel holds out.

This would make flamer use more tactical and decision-oriented, rather than flamer ‘Mechs looking to isolate lone targets, heatlock them, then SPL their bums off while they’re unable to do more than offer token chainfire resistance.

Other items suggested included a module or other function allowing the player to see the heat bar percentage of enemy ‘Mechs within a short range (240m, I believe), as well as allowing flamers which strike an enemy at 90% heat to slow down their dissipation for a time, or to do extra damage. Which, come to think of it, was another thing flamers would do in the new system – damage. Since their effective HPS will be severely curtailed over long-duration fights, Tuesday would like to see the weapons dealing damage roughly equivalent to a really hot small laser, with more damage against a target based on how hot said target is so that flamer use against already-heatlocked targets is not a complete waste.

Overall, the intent is to turn flamers into a sucker punch rather than a chokehold – something you can use to surprise an enemy, or to quickly take one foe out of the fight for long enough to power-play him or his teammates, but which you can’t use to torture Quickdraws to death on Tourmaline.

I believe that covers most everything of immediate concern. Again, doing this from memory between calls at work, so if there’s anything I missed…deal w/it.

Edited by 1453 R, 22 February 2016 - 10:49 AM.

[Jman5]

Some thoughts

Feedback: It would be nice to have some more visual clues for the state of the enemy's heat guage. I would also like real clear indication when a player uses Coolshot. If you're really watching carefully you can just make out the steam rising, but otherwise you don't notice.

Balance: I'm not convinced it's as imbalanced (OP in duels, UP in regular queue) as you make it out. What I do think is that it's a game changer and something that players need to account for. There are build and play strategies that can mitigate or even nullify its effect.

If you think about it, there are plenty of other weapon systems in mechwarrior online that are also game changers. However we've been playing with them for so long that we're used to building around them. LRMs for example are a game changer weapon which is largely why Radar Deprivation is so widely used.

I think because Flamers are new (and a little buggy) they're causing a lot of disruption. However once people become accustomed to their impact in a fight, adaptions will be made.

As for it being underpowered in regular play, I didn't think it is. You treat it like any other tool in your mech build. It's there when you can close the distance and fire off a few spurts, but your primary guns should be your focus. Don't Rambo in just so you can get into flamer range.

Recharging ammo: It's a polished idea and if PGI could add it quickly, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Another option is to just make it less effective as you fire more. So 1 flamer = 4.5 heat/s, 2 flamers = 6.5 heat/s, 3 flamers = 7.5 heat/s, 4 flamers = 8 heat/s, etc... Or whatever values you think is fair.