47 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

One thing to note: the tiny tiny plasma cannon model of Flamer, as proposed by Tuesday and many others, also plays much more nicely with the module system. Refire modules would actually be able to function with flamers, and a system like this would allow for, say, an increased-ammo module or increased recharge, or other such things that actually work with flamers. Also gives Piranha more values to tweak for flamer-based quirks on 'Mechs like the Firestarter that are supposed to be canonical flamer boats.

[Fantastic Tuesday]

Behold, video-haters! I have updated the OP with a written overview.

1453 R, on 22 February 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

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.

Hahahaha. Oh you poor soul. I've included it in the OP because it is a very, very good synopsis, well done.

Jman5, on 22 February 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

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.

I am very glad you aren't opposed to the idea despite not feeling it to be necessary. While I have had lots of positive responses to this, some people react to an idea they don't see the need for by loudly declaring the whole exercise stupid, regardless of whether or not the idea would actually hurt them.

Moving on. I would be absolutely shocked if the proposal couldn't be introduced easily. It just relies of weapon cooldown/duration and ammo, both of which are fully integrated into the game (obviously).

i don't like your idea of reducing the heat with the number of flamers for a number of reasons but most critically: it's something else for players - old and new alike - to have to learn and remember.

An ammo system has no hidden numbers. You can learn everything you need to know about it by playing with it for 5 seconds.

This game is already over-saturated with over-complicated and opaque systems.

Edited by Fantastic Tuesday, 22 February 2016 - 03:51 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Observation: the TL;DW solution sounds almost like turning Flamers into miniature Clan Plasma Cannons. Kinda neat.

[1453 R]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 February 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Observation: the TL;DW solution sounds almost like turning Flamers into miniature Clan Plasma Cannons. Kinda neat.

Basically, yeah, except flamer ammo would regenerate over time. Which is fair(ish), since plasma cannons have massively longer range and deal enormously more heat damage, as I recall.

[Fantastic Tuesday]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 February 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Observation: the TL;DW solution sounds almost like turning Flamers into miniature Clan Plasma Cannons. Kinda neat.

Not really. It's sticking very closely to the fiction descripton of flamers, they vent plasma.

It makese me laugh that the two people who asked for a written version haven't responded now that I have spent 3 hours doing just that. Great stuff.

[Scout Derek]

Fantastic Tuesday, on 24 February 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

Not really. It's sticking very closely to the fiction descripton of flamers, they vent plasma.

It makese me laugh that the two people who asked for a written version haven't responded now that I have spent 3 hours doing just that. Great stuff.

Don't be so down Tuesday, remember, this hasn't been touched on since the 22nd, and today is the 24th, and unless it's a topic that people keep coming back to consistently then the thread goes out quickly, per say now, they can be revived rather quickly.

[Wintersdark]

Fantastic Tuesday, on 24 February 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

It makese me laugh that the two people who asked for a written version haven't responded now that I have spent 3 hours doing just that. Great stuff.

Hey, come on. It's just been a day or two, and editing your OP doesn't generate a notification.


Thanks for the writeup.

While I don't necessarily feel things are as much of a problem as you do, I do think your suggested changes would be a significant net improvement overall. However, despite how reasonable they seem, I do also feel they are sufficiently extensive that PGI simply won't do it. This is born of 4 years of experience with the sorts of changes PGI will, and will not, make. What you suggest is very, very far beyond what they're traditionally willing to do to improve a single weapon(Even though they are very reasonable and generally within current tech restrictions). I'm aware of the traditional responses to this, and understand I'm not saying I think they SHOULDN'T do what you want, just that it's pretty much absolutely guaranteed they won't.

---

So, yeah, I'm with you on your changes, though I disagree with the amount of need for them. I think it'd be wholly an improvement.

You're not the first to fault the heat increase mechanic as being complex and bewildering. I don't really agree with that at all; I find it incredibly obvious and self explanatory (you figure out what's going on pretty quickly) though I do feel it needs to be better explained in game. But, I'm not hooked on it either, I just like it for how it avoids flamer boating. I understand you point to boating as a problem with the current flamers, but I disagree - After 6, more flamers are utterly worthless, and 3-4 is generally the sweet spot). Reducing boating is always an admirable goal IMHO. Your recharging Flamer Fuel concept does that as well, and more elegantly, so I support still that entirely.

Trying to stay within "Things that are more likely to happen":

First and foremost, with any implementation, we need a way to get a visual representation of target heat more useful than "are they steaming?" (which is deeply flawed and difficult to manage). I'm a huge fan of *AP, TC, CC etc providing a target heat gauge alongside their paperdoll; or simply having it there by default.

But seeing your target heat makes flamers MUCH more satisfying to use and easy to understand.

Importantly, this can be done as a single, isolated change, and would vastly improve current flamer use as well as being a great first step towards your proposed system.

1453 R, on 22 February 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

One thing to note: the tiny tiny plasma cannon model of Flamer, as proposed by Tuesday and many others, also plays much more nicely with the module system. Refire modules would actually be able to function with flamers, and a system like this would allow for, say, an increased-ammo module or increased recharge, or other such things that actually work with flamers. Also gives Piranha more values to tweak for flamer-based quirks on 'Mechs like the Firestarter that are supposed to be canonical flamer boats.

Definitely a plus.

I wish I thought there was any chance whatsoever of it happening But really, look how long it took them to do anything to flamers. Keep in mind, we currently have the original design with tweaked stats and new graphics.

Edited by Wintersdark, 24 February 2016 - 01:37 PM.

[LordNothing]

i like the ammo pool concept. i mentioned something like it awhile back. every flamer has a tank, so if you have a lot of flamers you have a bigger reservoir. however the recharge rate is fixed, limited by the mechs reactor and divided up among the installed flamers. so if you have a lot of flamers you have more stored plasma but it takes longer to refill them.

so mechs with alot of flamers can have one big thermal pulse to insti-max a mechs heat, but you cant do it very often. mechs with fewer flamers can sustain heat for longer periods of time with fewer gaps between streams and with less heat affecting you. you might even see people installing flamers just for their tanks, they might have 4 of them but only use 2 so they can sustain their burn for a really long time.

i dont know if i like the laser type firing mechanic though. the only limit on being able to fire is tanks with fuel in them. you should be able to start and stop them at will.