Flamers!

The place to discuss balance changes for future versions of the game.
(Master releases & 3.X)

Flamers are...

underpowered !
11
20%
just right !
18
33%
overpowered !
25
46%
 
Total votes : 54

Re: Flamers!

Postby NoQ » 18 Jan 2013, 10:02

Reg312 has just made a >> patch << that fixes weapon modifiers for incendiary damage. It also allows to set damage class (burn damage through kinetic armor?), upgrade branch (fire bombs get bomb or flamer upgrades for incendiary damage?) and weapon modifier (does incendiary mortar deal artillery or flame incendiary damage?) for incendiary damage via weapons.ini.

Could anybody add this to master (and see what happens)? (:

P.S. I reported in irc that i had a crash with this patch, but it seems to be unrelated and needs further investigation; i'll post a relevant bug whenever i manage to reproduce it on master (whether with this patch or not).
User avatar
NoQ
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Flamers!

Postby Berg » 08 Mar 2013, 22:30

there is no really counter early in the game for flamers as they are too over powered and there is nothing that’s immune to them not even walls that should be immune that latest stable 3.1.0 still have the flamer problem thats plagued the game since balance was toyed with.
User avatar
Berg
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: 02 Sep 2007, 23:25
Location: Australia

Re: Flamers!

Postby Rommel » 12 Mar 2013, 20:31

Berg wrote:there is no really counter early in the game for flamers as they are too over powered and there is nothing that’s immune to them not even walls that should be immune that latest stable 3.1.0 still have the flamer problem thats plagued the game since balance was toyed with.


I tend to agree - there does not seem to be an effective counter for massed plasmite hovers either, maybe a strong defense, but if they get into your base you are gone, all you can really do is keep building defenses and moving your units up with the defenses.

All i am seeing lately in MP is massed plasmite hovers, that's it and it is owning. You put massed hovers against any other mass of units and they will destroy them, thus there does not seem to be a counter and there is supposed to be a counter for everything is there not?
Moving back instead of forward
Seems to me absurd
~
Metallica - Eye of the beholder
User avatar
Rommel
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 440
Joined: 03 Nov 2012, 19:44

Re: Flamers!

Postby Shadow Wolf TJC » 13 Mar 2013, 20:52

Which kind of games are you mostly seeing this kind of strategy? NTW-styled games?
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100
User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Flamers!

Postby Rommel » 13 Mar 2013, 23:50

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:Which kind of games are you mostly seeing this kind of strategy? NTW-styled games?


Yep NTW style, but even at the start of the game it only takes a handful of flamer borgs and tanks to keep the opponent contained. And this only gets worse as the game progresses, as soon as you hit python-hover-inferno you just have to mass them and keep running them into the opponents army, it annihilates them.
Moving back instead of forward
Seems to me absurd
~
Metallica - Eye of the beholder
User avatar
Rommel
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 440
Joined: 03 Nov 2012, 19:44

Re: Flamers!

Postby WOPR » 02 Apr 2013, 08:19

NoQ wrote:Even though regular flamers are just fine, inferno python hovers have turned out to be an instant win in most of the games i've seen them in, both low-oil and high-oil.


I'll have to test this out, always been a flamer fan for the DoT and area control for fights.
WOPR
New user
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 02 Apr 2013, 08:05

Re: Flamers!

Postby AWarZoner » 28 May 2013, 21:18

NoQ wrote:
Flamer cyborgs are overpowered, but only early game.
I don't think so. By the time you get enough of them, your opponent can get pretty nice machineguns. Hopefully related video.


Yes I prefer the Machinegun branch. :3
They are my choice in every game.

Andrie
AWarZoner
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 21 May 2013, 17:03

Re: Flamers!

Postby Perseus » 28 May 2013, 23:28

Berg wrote:there is no really counter early in the game for flamers as they are too over powered and there is nothing that’s immune to them not even walls that should be immune that latest stable 3.1.0 still have the flamer problem thats plagued the game since balance was toyed with.


+1

Incendiary Mortar balance needs looking at as well, overpowered, agree mostly with Reg312 on this.
Perseus
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 09 Oct 2010, 22:25

Re: Flamers!

Postby Zepherian » 13 Jun 2013, 23:30

Been toying online with flamers on high oil games (as Omina) and I think they are not too overpowered, although if you're pushed into a corner it can be devastating. It's more of a situational weopon imo. Incendiary mortars I won't comment on as I don't have much experience with them. One counter is to range flamers. For example, a cobra flamer halftrack will lose to a cobra dual machinegun hover. So propulsion type matters. Defense type matters too, a bunker might not work but a simple wall will do wonders. Half of the problem is people fighting without recon and getting jumped on, which is what flamers are really good for. Or people defending short, in base, with armies that could only win in open ground with hit and run tactics. Overall, I think it is fine. I have won with them, I have lost with them, I have been won by them, I have won against them in what seems to me like normal ratios. Just sidestepping the flamer rush and leaving them on structures allows most of them to be killed, and its quicker to rebuild a factory than to build 30 flamer units...

The plasmite thing is a bit devastating but it requires numbers, so again it's an in the corner thing. Just researching and building plasmite won't win a game, and every time you use it you will lose at least 75% of your army to equal numbers of antitank weopons. Most of the people losing to it haven't researched their armor or aren't making very good tanks. It won't work on rail guns for another example, and the new paradigm bodies hold out better (not to mention being faster, which helps vrs low range weopons). In low oil the natural difficulty in amassing armies reduces flamer effectiveness, as rushing the enemy with flamers usually gets a noticeable percentage of the flamer units killed before first shot. When I rush someones base with 135 plasmites I usually end up with less than 30 after hitting the enemy army. Now, if someone builds some gates and walls and mortars I won't be able to attack without losing more than 30 tanks. And for plasmite to really work it has to be hovers or halftracks, so if the other guy is full tracked with armor upgraded things can go downhill pretty fast. I've been forced off plasmite and onto pulse laser more than once. Most of the fuss about flamers come from the fact that in a lot of team games one team researches much better than the other, and the inbalance is the players. Another thing about flamers, to use them is to lose them, so most of the time I use them I have very light defense to keep the build rates high. This opens up another counter to them which is sneakyness. Things like assault gunner cyborgs can be very devastating in moderate numbers and turn a game around vrs a plasmite rusher who is using his whole economy to build and research for this atrition strategy.

My 5c.
Zepherian
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 06 Apr 2013, 22:35

Re: Flamers!

Postby Iluvalar » 14 Jun 2013, 06:31

Hello Zepherian, the opening I got the best results with flamers was an RRF opening. Which is quite an unusual opening. In high oil, this mean that at least one more player (preferably two) in your team must be warned and coordinate the research toward that goal.

If the remaining of your team goes for the more common MG opening you wont get the same result. Many point in your post make me believe your not quite aware of all that yet. Like the sentence "When I rush with 135 plasmites".
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Flamers!

Postby Zepherian » 14 Jun 2013, 13:52

May I add that the post I made was based on a few dozen high oil 1v1 games and the plasmite thing is something I use on FFA's on maps such as squared. I rarely use plasmite flamers late in a teamgame setting on high oil because more often than not hardpoints and concrete walls negate them, as will abundant artillary. I have seen it done though. For further clarification replace the word rush with "assault" or "charge", as I meant an offense not a rapid research early game offense. I understand that I didn't get my point across clearly.
Zepherian
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 06 Apr 2013, 22:35

Re: Flamers!

Postby Iluvalar » 14 Jun 2013, 15:13

Therefore you cannot open with RRF in high oil... I'd suggest RFR with supreme emphasis on flamers damage. This is flamer first + research upgrades.

Please never mix squared FFA and balance talk again lol.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Flamers!

Postby Zepherian » 14 Jun 2013, 15:34

I open RRRFF on high oil no base 1v1 and a big map. Why not mix squared ffa and balance? Balance is balance, it's based on units, structures, weopons and their counters. Not the game type. A game is balanced if any given unit, structure weopon combo can be countered with other combos that not the same thing. This is true for flamers which is why I believe they are not inbalanced, if powerful and noob friendly.

Warzone is warzone, the game types don't change much. The division between high oil and low oil for balance is a bit artificial, as both on the small games and the big games the same principles apply. The division between ffa and team games is the same. The focus should be on research paths and weopon performance.

For an example: I believe that medium body vtols en mass are more unbalanced than flamers, because they are possible at a time in the game where an effective AA counter is unavailable allowing for a few free base strikes if you can make say over 45 of them. Try stopping that with tier one AA. This is why the so called noobs ask for no vtols, they know from experience that there is a window where vtols can win the game (if the rush dosen't win first). Flamers can be stopped within the techtree by mgs of all things. It might be touch and go for a bit, but it can go either way = balance. Regardless of game type and map.
Zepherian
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 06 Apr 2013, 22:35

Re: Flamers!

Postby NoQ » 14 Jun 2013, 16:22

Balance is balance, it's based on units, structures, weopons and their counters. Not the game type.
No. Moreover, it relies on strict map making guidelines. A map can easily give advantage to certain strategies. Easy enough: for example, narrow chokepoints can easily make defenses overpowered. Thus balance between tanks and defences cannot be achieved between introducing guidelines on chokepoint width.
User avatar
NoQ
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Flamers!

Postby Zepherian » 14 Jun 2013, 19:40

The terrain is the terrain, by its very nature it will define the game, and adapting the base and armies to the terrain is one of the joys of warzone. I don't see this as inbalance but you are right. A king and fools type map is also unbalanced but it has it's place in multiplayer. What you are saying is a bit like saying shattered glass unbalances sandals. Yes it does, but you don't have to walk on it. A map can be opted out of, but once the game starts the relative statistics of the items envolved are what define balance imo, terrain being a given. Statistics which include cost of course and position in the tech tree. I don't think people making maps follow guidelines, they tend to create what they think is fun or, in a few very isolated cases, try to cheat. The community then decides what it wants to play, which is why we see a lot of high oil flat maps, which I know disgust some people because it's just a different game type.

Heres a story of a game I had a few days ago to ilustrate my points: The map was close combat, a 2 player map with 6 generators of oil, full bases with full factories and some artillary already build on the entrance. I got rushed earlyish by a python flamer hover combo with flamer cyborgs. At the same time I was all vtol and walls, having rushed out bug heavy machine gun vtols. He destroyed my base, minus the cyborg factories (under artillary cover). I destroyed all his factories and trucks with my vtols simultaneously (he had no aa). Since he destroyed my pads I was left with a dozen empty vtols and no power. I recycled everything, he was sitting on my oil, I could not go into his base because of artillary and decided to risk going after his python flamer hovers, the surviving units, with 30 machinegunners, after a first failed attempt with grenadiers, which did some damage but left 5 or 6 units alive. It was touch and go but I managed to get all the pythons and see fireworks. To me the fact that a game like this is possible shows that flamers are not too powerfull or I would have lost. Yes, the map favours vtols, because it starts with no aa and chokepoints, but that was what it was designed, by someone else, to do. Or what it does by chance. Not everyone sees it. It probably dosen't follow guidelines but this game was some of the best fun I have had in warzone over the thousands of games I no doubt have played online and will stay as a gaming memory untill I get alzheimers, which at my age will probably be around next tuesday :)

If you guys consider all this offtopic just delete the post I don't mind.
Zepherian
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 06 Apr 2013, 22:35

PreviousNext

Return to Balance

cron