47 replies to this topic

[Fantastic Tuesday]

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 (or read the summary below if you are allergic to YouTube, I guess) before engaging in a discussion here. The video is 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 I reserve the right to complain that you've misunderstood my point or are repeating things that I've already addressed.

Edit 22/02:

1453 R volunteered this lovely synopsis of my video while I was travelling and unable to provide one. Really terrific effort, man, thank you.

Spoiler

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.

Here's a brief overview of the proposal, for those who absolutely refuse to watch a video. Stills from the video are hidden in spoiler tags for ease of reading.

First image, an overview of the pros, cons and... bigger cons... of the current system.

Spoiler

Flamers are badly balanced.

When you are locked into close combat with one enemy mech (either as part of a larger fight or when you have caught them on their own) flamers provide you with an absurdly unfair advantage. I say this as someone who has been abusing flamers all week. I have yet to be on the receiving end. This isn't a ragepost, it's a 'I feel sorry for these people' post. Everything other than AC5 boats can be stunlocked. It's no fun for the victim and, frankly, after a while it got boring to inflict something so grossly unfair.

On the other hand, flamers are really terrible in large fights where you can be focused by multiple enemies. You have to facetank to use them and it takes painfully long seconds before your target is actually heated up enough to be in trouble. Many large fights are decided long before then. The result is you either not using your flamers effectively (wasting the tonnage) or getting yourself cored out.

The solution is to give them greater burst potential – thus making them useful in large, faster fights - at the expense of reduced long-term performance.
How do we give them burst ability? Give them a fixed duration and cooldown, just like a laser.
Let's use some rough numbers for example. Final figures can be found through playtesting.

Open the spoiler for the stats.

Spoiler

This would let them inflict an average of 4 heat per second, similar to the 4.5 value in the game right now. Because they apply this heat in big whacks spaced out by a few seconds, we have a number of interesting consequences:

• The player on the receiving end is better able to return fire provided they time their shots well.
  
• But those giant, sudden whacks of heat can really throw them off balance or delay their fire for a seconds, turning flamers into a strong shock weapon.
  
• Additionally, if a flamer user times it well, they can fire a burst in the middle of an opponent's laser alpha to trick them into shutting themselves down.
  
• Further, the flamer user can torso twist to mitigate damage, removing one of their key deficiencies.

So how do we reduce their long-term performance? With a recharging ammo pool. Want a fiction explanation? Flamers vent plasma from the reactor (this is from the lore). It makes sense that there's only a limited reservoir available before reactor operation is threatened. This reservoir would, however, be able to replenish over time as the reactor operates.

Let's have a pool of 100 units of plasma. Each flamer burst consumes 25, and the pool recharges at 2.5 per second. Again, rough numbers. What this means is that the more flamers you have, the sooner you have to slow down your flaming. This adds a penalty for boating (which does not currently exist!), while still allowing up to 4 flamers to be viable. The recharge rate allows a mech to fire a flamer every 10 seconds after the initial reserve is depleted, giving a sustained heat damage of 2 per second, which is the amount that 10 doubles sinks can dissipate. Essentially, even in a long fight you'd be able to drastically reduce your opponent's cooling, but you'd only be reducing their dps, not their ability to actually return fire.

Here's a mockup of how this would look on the weapon display.

Spoiler

And here's an overview of how increasing numbers of flamers would perform. 2-3 is the sweet spot with 1 and 4 still being viable.

Spoiler

And here are some additional ideas that aren't essential to this mechanic but are worth consideration. Watch the last 30 seconds of the video for embellishment. Sue me.

Spoiler

And a slide that sumarrises the main thrust of this proposal, in case you skim-read this:




FAQ:
(Comments that I've addressed here and elsewhere a half dozen times already. I will add to this as necessary.)

'But if someone is caught on their own they deserve to get killed!'

Oh I agree. But there's a difference between simply deserving your fate and being guaranteed an unfair fight.

Either way, this is not a very relevant point but I've seen it thrown around a lot to try to distract from the issue at hand: the problem is that in a fight between two mechs where there is minimal interference from others (which can, and does, happen even when teams are sticking together and playing well, it's just a normal part of group combat) the flamer-equipped mech will have a decisive advantage over their opponent. Anything other than an AC5 boat is forced to chain fire their weapons. The result is devastating for the flamed mech.

Don't believe me? Watch Ninjamoose and I jump two heavies.

https://www.youtube....BtlqLPk#t=7m24s

They did nothing wrong, but the fight splits into two little duels which we both win by a huge margin because of how bad flamer stunlock is. And then ten seconds later we stomp a Gargoyle and Locust by an embarrassing margin.

'But you can still return fire! You just have to chain fire!'

You can test why this is rubbish without even having to find a foe with a flamer. Take your favourite brawler for a spin, with one twist: you are only allowed to fire one weapon every second to simulate being held at 90%.

Did you get cored out in under ten seconds? Congratulations, you aren't in Tier 5.

Did you do ok? Commiserations, you are in Tier 5.

Torso twisting and firing your weapons as an alpha are so completely fundamental to good brawling that you simply can't compete when you are forced by a flamer to not do either of those things. If you don't like that torso twisting and alphas are essential then make a different forum thread and complain about the general state of the game. Don't do it here, it's not relevant.

'I think flamers are fine as they are.'

Fair enough. I disagree strongly with you and I highly doubt you've spent more time using flamers than I have (RIP my life). But we can't all agree on everything.

However, we can still get along. If by 'fine' you mean they aren't over/under powered then I would implore you to consider these particular advantages of this mechanic:

• No more face tanking. Compare how much more useable autocannons are to machine guns. If you think machine guns are fine then you need to get your Tier up some, scrub.
  
• Improved 'quality of life'. By replacing PGI's sloppy and bewildering heat increase mechanic with a simple, readable hard limit, you only have to keep mental track of cooldowns and ammo usage (which you are used to already) instead of nursing your flamers like a bunch of damn Tamagotchi.
  
• Addition of a boating penalty that doesn't remove the ability to nuke the hell out of someone's heat bar. 12 flamer novas are a sweet, sweet drug. You need encouragement to kick this habit.

If by 'fine' you mean you like the heat increase mechanic then I feel like you would be an interesting case study on outliers in pleasure/pain dynamics for a psychologist.

Edited by Fantastic Tuesday, 22 February 2016 - 03:30 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Vaguely interested, but hate watching videos. Certainly not spending 10 minutes watching what could have been read in 1.

[Fantastic Tuesday]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

Vaguely interested, but hate watching videos. Certainly not spending 10 minutes watching what could have been read in 1.

Forgive me for thinking that visual/audio demonstrations of a concept and the arguments for it would be in any way less entertaining or persuasive than a wall of text.

I think you deeply underestimate how much is in here. It's no one-minute read, it's an eleven minute read. If you can't be bothered to even try watching something that took me the last half week to produce then that's your call. *shrug*

[Chimera_]

I haven't used flamers since the change, but having seen a lot of other players using them I agree on most of what you said. As you said, your numbers are rough and I would definitely modify some things, but in general I think it's good basis. Aside from the ammo part, I believe this is more or less how they worked in MW4, right?

Supported.

Edited by Chimera11, 21 February 2016 - 04:26 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

I agree with the TL:DW bit. And also, bring back the old graphics, ffs. Blinding won't be a big issue if they have a duration and cooldown, if blinding was ever a real issue before (any more than 6xUAC2 or 6xLRM5, that is)

The key thing is the fact that they're often too effective in 1v1, but less effective in a bigger brawl. In my opinion, this kind of imbalance is bad for the game. It's similar to streakboating (too effective against some mechs, ineffective against others). It leads to rock, paper, scissors gameplay which is never fun.

[Wintersdark]

Fantastic Tuesday, on 21 February 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

Forgive me for thinking that visual/audio demonstrations of a concept and the arguments for it would be in any way less entertaining or persuasive than a wall of text.

I think you deeply underestimate how much is in here. It's no one-minute read, it's an eleven minute read. If you can't be bothered to even try watching something that took me the last half week to produce then that's your call. *shrug*

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.

Now, by all means, present your feelings however you will.

This is probably a factor of age, but videos are (baring a couple instances) simply never as informatiin-dense as well written text. Sadly, I suspect today's youth are either too lazy or simply incapable of reading rapidly with comprehension.

So, perhaps it's better for them that you made the video, who am I to say?

But the problem, for me, is that I can read the entirety of this thread in well under a minute, but I cannot speed up the video. What's more, the video will require audio as well, so that greatly restricts when one can watch it - I certainly can't right now, as I'd be unable to listen.

I mean no offense. Really. I just long for the loss of text, and bemoan how things are moving to video now despite the gross inefficiency. After all, images and short video clips can be added to a post if visuals are required, gaining the benefits of both worlds.

Old man problems, I guess.

Alistair Winter, on 21 February 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

I agree with the TL:DW bit. And also, bring back the old graphics, ffs. Blinding won't be a big issue if they have a duration and cooldown, if blinding was ever a real issue before (any more than 6xUAC2 or 6xLRM5, that is)

The key thing is the fact that they're often too effective in 1v1, but less effective in a bigger brawl. In my opinion, this kind of imbalance is bad for the game. It's similar to streakboating (too effective against some mechs, ineffective against others). It leads to rock, paper, scissors gameplay which is never fun.

I don't argue this at all. However, I'll take Flamers being situationally useful vs. totally garbage all the time. I'll have opinions on changes later, but I want to see how everything settles first.

[TexAce]

I like flamers the way they are now.

[Fantastic Tuesday]

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

Sadly, I suspect today's youth are either too lazy or simply incapable of reading rapidly with comprehension.

Oh wow. Maybe it's not because a generation doesn't meet your standards and more to do with how many people born throughout the 20th Century see the advantages of video to present information. E.g. documentaries, instructional videos. These aren't new things, they've been around since television. I'm going to assume you grew up with access to TV.

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

You didn't have to insult a generation in the process.

TexAce said:

I like flamers the way they are now.

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

[Namwons]

Stop complaining about a support weapon, thats actually useful now, in 1v1 situations in a team based game. Call in your anti souts if you have a flame up your rear. Caught out by yourself in a 1v1 situation is your own fault. Compitent players learn to adapt.

Get good or get got.

[1453 R]

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.

Edited by 1453 R, 21 February 2016 - 05:37 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Assign the target heat indicator to BAP, not a module.
Make it cost something, and give that Streak Tax another purpose.

I don't like the ammo/plasma restriction

The penalty for boating IS heat. You can fire 2 Flamers without gaining heat for a handful of seconds (because 2.3 H/s dissipation from 10 TrueDubs), but firing 4 Flamers is 4 H/s, more than most dissipation.
That's without the ramping heat...



I'd suggest something very simple: Static heat values.
+1 H/s for the shooter, +2H/s for the target. That's it, that's what you get.
Promotes boating just as much, of course.


I'd say keep the 90% heat cap as it stands, and not change how it affects dissipation. It means you can at least shoot back with anything you have. You're able to shoot an AC20 if you have 1 heatsink while running, as 10 TrueDubs give you a 60 heat cap (6 heat=10%).


I missed things, but those are what I remember.

[Mad Strike]

Well i'm having fun.

[Sug]

Increase the amount of heat they generate on your target, allow them to actually shut mechs down, and remove the heat they add to your own mech.

Make them ammo based with a fixed amount of fuel per flamer and a 100% chance to detonate when destroyed adding a large amount of heat to your mech.

Powerful, effective, with limits and drawbacks.

Also the new animation blows. Bring back the flames.

[Navid A1]

I enjoyed your video fantastic Tue. I think the plasma pool can have potential if implemented correctly
I think the heat pools for each flamer should be independent of each other. And engine rating should affect recharge rate.

Mcgral18, on 21 February 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Assign the target heat indicator to BAP, not a module.
Make it cost something, and give that Streak Tax another purpose.

I don't like the ammo/plasma restriction

The penalty for boating IS heat. You can fire 2 Flamers without gaining heat for a handful of seconds (because 2.3 H/s dissipation from 10 TrueDubs), but firing 4 Flamers is 4 H/s, more than most dissipation.
That's without the ramping heat...



I'd suggest something very simple: Static heat values.
+1 H/s for the shooter, +2H/s for the target. That's it, that's what you get.
Promotes boating just as much, of course.


I'd say keep the 90% heat cap as it stands, and not change how it affects dissipation. It means you can at least shoot back with anything you have. You're able to shoot an AC20 if you have 1 heatsink while running, as 10 TrueDubs give you a 60 heat cap (6 heat=10%).


I missed things, but those are what I remember.

Having a static 2 H/s to target is a little bit low. Almost all mechs can dissipate more than 2 H/s. It will however slow down their cooling off time after they fire their weapons. Also a mech with 2 flamers can stun-lock the target with no penalty.

I think that a rechargeable plasma pool can be useful, depending on how the recharge process is affected by engine rating, or how large the pool is.

Regarding target heat indicator, I once suggested it as a clan TC feature 2 years ago. I agree that it better be a feature of an equipment rather than a module.

Edited by Navid A1, 21 February 2016 - 08:05 PM.

[FupDup]

Navid A1, on 21 February 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:

Having a static 2 H/s to target is a little bit low. Almost all mechs can dissipate more than 2 H/s. It will however slow down their cooling off time after they fire their weapons. Also a mech with 2 flamers can stun-lock the target with no penalty.

I think that a rechargeable plasma pool can be useful, depending on how the recharge process is affected by engine rating, or how large the pool is.

Regarding target heat indicator, I once suggested it as a clan TC feature 2 years ago. I agree that it better be a feature of an equipment rather than a module.

Keep in mind that most mechs won't be using just a single Flamer. 2.0 HPS looks low for only one Flamer, but if you have 2-4 of them (which is quite normal) they could probably still get somebody up the heat bar quite quickly.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Namwons, on 21 February 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Get good or get got.

Did you really just tell Fantastic Tuesday to get good?

[Mad Strike]

Sug, on 21 February 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

Increase the amount of heat they generate on your target, allow them to actually shut mechs down, and remove the heat they add to your own mech.

Make them ammo based with a fixed amount of fuel per flamer and a 100% chance to detonate when destroyed adding a large amount of heat to your mech.

Powerful, effective, with limits and drawbacks.

Also the new animation blows. Bring back the flames.

Is plasma coming from the reactor dude.................

[Xavori]

I read 10k wpm and type at 80-100. It let's me alt-tab to the forum and make snarky comments while waiting on the matchmaker. No way in hell you're getting me to watch a 10 minute video

[Mad Strike]

Xavori, on 21 February 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

I read 10k wpm and type at 80-100. It let's me alt-tab to the forum and make snarky comments while waiting on the matchmaker. No way in hell you're getting me to watch a 10 minute video

but is youtube.....you can use the slider.

[Namwons]

@Sig sorry cant /quote very well n my phone at work, but referring to whoever said flamers where OP on 1v1. His post nust happened to be before mine.