## Flamers!

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

## Flamers are...

underpowered !
15
25%
just right !
20
33%
overpowered !
26
43%

Reg312
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

### Re: Flamers!

Iluvalar wrote: Oh course I do !
Used at a reasonable moment, and considering the penetration bonus, It expect the incendiary damage to hit 0.94 units each shot. 0.37 on one on one. That make a single unit unpredictable, but as a whole the law of the mean take over it and I'd say players that use flamers reasonably (aiming for groups, not individual) do not really take so much chances.
how you calculate values 0,94 and 0,37?
is this some kind of "feel" values or you have exact formulas for this values?
anyway can you comment my suggestion about making incendiary damage should dependent on propulsion and defense strenght?

Iluvalar
Regular
Posts: 1819
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

### Re: Flamers!

0.37 is r^(√2) where r is .5 for the flamer. That √2 might be questionnable, but i know for sure it will be greater than 1 because it's an areo of effect and smaller than 2 because you can't dream of a super dense pack of unit each time you shoot and the portion of you area that should be empty, should increase with your area expending.

I stopped on √2 because it looked pretty good with the actual balance. It fit with pretty much all area of effect weapon of the game. But i'm open to arguments . But you say that experimentaly you get ~30% and i say i expect 37%.. so i'm not that bad.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Cyp
Evitcani
Posts: 778
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 23:35

### Re: Flamers!

You could make it r^(1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(...))))), instead of r^(√2). Then it looks like it came from somewhere, instead of being just a random number.

Iluvalar
Regular
Posts: 1819
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

### Re: Flamers!

√2 is the straight line between the 2 perpendicular dimensions of lenght 1. It's a very good mid point for that kind of equation. It's not like i chose it totally randomly. Dont be silly

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pl ... x%3D0+to+3
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Cyp
Evitcani
Posts: 778
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 23:35

### Re: Flamers!

But doesn't 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(...)))) look just as good?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pl ... x%3D0+to+3

Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

### Re: Flamers!

Personally, I'm not all that familiar with the Master build, but here's my opinion on what Flamers and burn damage in general should be like:

1. Flamers are supposed to be incredibly powerful for their price, especially thanks to the burn damage that they inflict. However, this is balanced out by (or is supposed to balance out) the fact that they're the shortest-ranged weapons in the game. (If you think of the Machinegunner Cyborgs as being like Terran Marines from Starcraft, then Cyborg Flamers would be more like Protoss Zealots, which are themselves powerful, but short-ranged melee units.) Sadly, I feel as if alot of people on here fail to realize that the best way to deal with melee/short-ranged weapons is to simply stay away from them while you attack them with longer-ranged weapons.
2. Burn Damage should be multiplied by the weapon type of the "host weapon" affecting the target's unit or structure type. For example, the burn damage from a Flamer attacking a Hardpoint should be multiplied by only 10%, while the burn damage from a Flamer attacking a Bunker should be multiplied by a whopping 300%.
3. As far as how thermal armor should apply to burn damage, I have a couple suggestions:
• a. Ignore thermal armor altogether.
b. Apply thermal armor reductions to the total burn damage output, then divide it throughout the time that the burn damage lasts. For example, say that a unit with 10 thermal armor catches on fire, and (after applying weapon multipliers) would take 30 damage over 5 seconds, without applying thermal armor. When thermal armor is applied, then the afflicted unit would take 20 damage (30 fire damage total - 10 thermal armor) over 5 seconds, or 4 damage per second. Now if the target had, say, 35 thermal armor, then the damage taken would be 10 damage (1/3 x 30 fire damage due to high thermal armor) over 5 seconds, or only 2 damage per second.
Finally, I'd like to ask as to why the only structures that we can build that have Flamers, Infernoes, or Plasmite Flamers on them are all Bunkers? Pretty much every other weapon type in existence outranges Flamers, though that can be compensated by cleverly placing them behind hills (such as just behind that crater to the north of the LZ in Beta Mission 6). However, what really cripples them in my eyes is the fact that Flamer Bunkers are themselves weak to their own weapon, even more so than Cyborgs! As such, I wish that they were mounted on Emplacements instead of Bunkers (or Hardpoints or Towers). While still being low to the ground like Bunkers, Emplacements are treated as Hard Structures, meaning that Flamers are very ineffective against them.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

Reg312
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

### Re: Flamers!

Incendiary damage bugs was fixed, great thanks to Cyp!
now it will work with any number of updates per second and etc.

Again, i suggest following about flamers:
1) Set incendiary damage as damage from flamers WeaponEffect => WE_FLAMER
then we can balance flamers more accurate! for example we can just lower weapon modifiers for flamers and it will affect all flamer-like weapons.
In current balance flamers do 100% brun damage to any target, not affect by any weapon modifiers. For example, flamers can kill walls, thermal bombs incredible strong (350 damage * 20 seconds * 100% * 5 bombs)
Another problem what i see if we just nerf flamers - it become useless!! but if weapon modifiers become working we can make flamers stronger in some cases and weaker in another.
For example, slow units very vulnerable to flamers, while fast units can easy hit and run.

I believe applying balance to flamer is useless and wrong until incendiary damage is not affected by modifiers

2) Decrease constant damage (10 sec) which inflicted after time of burning. I think early flamers very strong in some cases because constant 15 damage is very high at this stage.
i suggest following formula (MIN(BURN_DAMAGE, psDrod->body/20) - thermal_armor)*BURN_TIME

3) Nerf inferno (15%), plasmite flamer(15%), thermite bombs(30%), incendiary mortar(15%)
Make damage from this weapons more dependent on thermal armor.
Also i care about "high-oil" games, this "crap-flate" kind of games could be balanced simple - just increase build time of flamers.
Build time is best way to balance thing on high oil and dont crash classic low oil games.

Iluvalar
Regular
Posts: 1819
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

### Re: Flamers!

Reg312 wrote: For example, slow units very vulnerable to flamers, while fast units can easy hit and run.
Can we stay with the actual balance ? Now it's faster units that are weaker.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Reg312
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

### Re: Flamers!

Iluvalar wrote:
Reg312 wrote: For example, slow units very vulnerable to flamers, while fast units can easy hit and run.
Can we stay with the actual balance ? Now it's faster units that are weaker.
you was agreed what flamer (inferno) are OP, what you suggest now?
faster units (hover, htrack) get same damage from flamers (incendiary damage modifier 100% for all propulsion)
also fast units can easily leave area of burn effect!
...so fast units gets 2-3 times lesser damage from burning effects, also can repair faster and use hit and run
i've played some time in WZ and didn't see any advantages of slow (tracked) units, in most cases this units are useless

ok, i see too few people are intrested or just think what im noob and dont respond
i believe with adjusting balance games in WZ will become more smoother. fact what most people play high oil says what current balance not the best :p

Iluvalar
Regular
Posts: 1819
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

### Re: Flamers!

oh yeah, of course I agree that the incendiary damage should have the weapon type (and modifiers) of the weapon that shot the projectile. But the actual flamers weapon modifiers favor tracks, and I think we shouldn't change it.

Note:
What is called "incendiary damage" is actually a long time area of effect. I can easily imagine, an auto minigun (anti personnal) that would stay active for a while, or a pulsating emp bomb (energy) or some sort of assumed MRA that shoot hundred of little rocket skyward and create and area of antitank rocket rain for a short period . Whatever have in mind for NRS+++, you should not assume it is only flamers .
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Reg312
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

### Re: Flamers!

Iluvalar wrote:oh yeah, of course I agree that the incendiary damage should have the weapon type (and modifiers) of the weapon that shot the projectile. But the actual flamers weapon modifiers favor tracks, and I think we shouldn't change it.
ok, we have 2 people who agreed
My thoughts was what instead playing with flamers damage i suggested to play with flamer (and incendiary) damage modifier
tracked units can be more resistant to flamers, more than current 90%
Iluvalar wrote: Note:
... Whatever have in mind for NRS+++, you should not assume it is only flamers .
ok when i was noob in wz I thought what ripples is anti tank rockets
difference with ripples and lancers in following fact: lancers trying find weak place in tanks and lancers more powerful, hmm.. they like hit propulsion. Ripples is just like rain and they dont find weak places, ripple rockets more mass productive and more cheap.

WZ could have unit formations it possibly can solve some overpowerness of inferno, because in most cases units just can stay with spaces and with bigger distance to resist to area effects

aubergine
Professional
Posts: 3459
Joined: 10 Oct 2010, 00:58
Contact:

### Re: Flamers!

I've been trying to make unit formations in my AI, for example VTOLs flying in a "V" shape but its really difficult to achieve. For land units it would be almost impossible because as soon as they need to go round a corner they will lose formation.
"Dedicated to discovering Warzone artefacts, and sharing them freely for the benefit of the community."
-- https://warzone.atlassian.net/wiki/display/GO

Reg312
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

### Re: Flamers!

inferno weapon have range of 4 tiles
but in real it can shoot to double range! see screenshots
penetration effect?? may be it should be adjusted to not make inferno to fire at double range?

i think its bug
1) seems penetration effect gives additional range to weapon (i'll check it in code)
looks like it adds 3-4 tiles (checked, it was 2-3 tiles)
2) if inferno have real 8 range, why inferno tank can start shooting only from 4 tiles, not from 8?
2) penetration effect should be adjusted for short ranged weapons like flamers because its weird when weapon can attack at double range

note: on first screen with oil derrick inferno tank stay and shoot from maximum distance (with long range order)

[update]
calculated approx inferno range on second screen, range = 6
so its not so much, as i thought

Iluvalar
Regular
Posts: 1819
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

### Re: Flamers!

As far as i know, the flamer can "chain react" and each time win 50% more of it range (multiplicative) 4=>6=>9=>13=>20=>30=>45=>70. Sometime we see a flaming shot going trough the entire map when it jump enough. It just work like that...
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Reg312
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

### Re: Flamers!

Iluvalar wrote:As far as i know, the flamer can "chain react" and each time win 50% more of it range (multiplicative) 4=>6=>9=>13=>20=>30=>45=>70. Sometime we see a flaming shot going trough the entire map when it jump enough. It just work like that...
funny..
when player have a lot of flamers and attack, he covers with fire much more than 4 tiles + 96 incen. radius
i think is one of reasons why flamers so strong