declined Exponential damage/damage increase over time for Firebird

[jordankiller 16]

Hi!

Firebird used to be deadly at close range. Now, it is very weak without alterations, as admitted by developers in the live stream with Cedric Debono. It was stated that ways to buff it were being thought of. I thought of one that the developers have probably thought of before: exponential damage, or a damage increase over time.

 

Picture this: A tank is sprayed with flames for 1 second (in real life). It probably won't have encountered any damage, providing the stuff that is spewed out (napalm?) does not keep the tank on fire. However, over 3 seconds, the tank will have been damaged. The "rate of damage" has increased, and each additional second will do potentially more damage than the last.

 

If you are attacked from behind by freeze, and have a slow rotating turret or no repair kits, you are pretty much done for. However, Firebird does not have such a "you're doomed" aspect to it.

 

I propose that Firebird should be given a "damage increase curve." The first half second will do very little damage. The next will do significantly more than that, and the next significantly more than that. Also, the afterburn potential will increase over time similarly. The average DPS over 5 seconds will be significantly higher than the current DPS. The first second you fire on a tank will hardly do anything. However, if you are not killed during the first moments, the enemy is done for. The damage per second will increase over time, perhaps exponentially every 1.5-2.0 seconds, (doubling every 1.5-2.0 seconds.)

 

To prevent the turret from getting OP, (which almost everyone will whine about since almost no one uses it without the alteration), the damage over a 5-second period must remain almost the same, maybe a little stronger. The afterburn should increase a little. It would be hard to get the math right, but not impossible. I think this would maintain Firebird's uniqueness but not make it OP or unrealistic.

 

Jordankiller

[Maf 32,300]

Valid  Declined

 

Great idea. Makes sense from both, realism and gameplay perspectives. This would make Firebird a feared opponent in the hands of a skilled player.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

Realism? Hmm. In real life once no more fuel is added the blaze it dies down not.It does not heat up. Since armor plate does not catch on fire itself fuel is needed to keep the heat. Well armor does not burn unless you are talking about some old Soviet vehicles like the BMD-1 and its magnesium alloy armor. There was a stroke of genius. I'm sure the soldiers in them had "warm thoughts" for their equipment developers...

 

IMO the devs would have headaches trying to balance an exponential function against Tanki's other, linear elements. In fact it simply cannot be done except withing very constraining limits.

 

But all this is besides the point as Firebird is decidedly overpowered right now. Yes, the alteration is needed to make it OP. But the alteration is there for the having.

 

1 second of exposure with aftterburn is enough to reduce my MU25+ Viking go from 100% armor to 25% armor . I have to hit a Viking about 3 times to knock it down 75% ... but that takes moer than 1 second and I cannot run away across the map while doing so.

 

Finished a DM tonight where the 1st place Firebird had 50 kills in 15 minutes by flash-flaming-then-fleeing. Would have been 52 if I had not used a couple RKs myself out of frustration.

 

So let's not do anything crazy, eh Tanki?

[Maf 32,300]

Realism? Hmm. In real life once no more fuel is added the blaze it dies down not.It does not heat up.

That's true. I missed the part about doing this for the afterburn as well - that definitely doesn't make much sense. But exponential damage for the main attack is quite sensible, since it represents how the fire is heating up and penetrating the tank, thus dealing more and more damage as the attack goes on.

 

Also, this doesn't have to be about giving Firebird a massive buff. The numbers can always be adjusted so that they fit in with the game balance to prevent the turret being useless or OP.

[Pink_Legacy 269]

Doesn't the afterburn already do that?

[LittleWillie 3,199]

That's true. I missed the part about doing this for the afterburn as well - that definitely doesn't make much sense. But exponential damage for the main attack is quite sensible, since it represents how the fire is heating up and penetrating the tank, thus dealing more and more damage as the attack goes on.

 

Also, this doesn't have to be about giving Firebird a massive buff. The numbers can always be adjusted so that they fit in with the game balance to prevent the turret being useless or OP.

Well the thing is if you are going to use an exponential curve that has been "flattened" enough to match well with the linear effects other turrets have ... then why not just use a linear approach in the first place? 

 

As for "realism" ... that's really not a design concern. We have bouncing plasma balls after all. I just couldn't resist evoking the old Soviet armored personnel carriers with the armor that would catch on fire when hit. :)

 

Magnesium armor ... remember flash bulbs? That was fine magnesium wire inside those. Let's deploy our infantry inside flash bulbs! Oy vey.

[jordankiller 16]

That's true. I missed the part about doing this for the afterburn as well - that definitely doesn't make much sense. But exponential damage for the main attack is quite sensible, since it represents how the fire is heating up and penetrating the tank, thus dealing more and more damage as the attack goes on.

 

Also, this doesn't have to be about giving Firebird a massive buff. The numbers can always be adjusted so that they fit in with the game balance to prevent the turret being useless or OP.

Sorry, I should have elaborated on the afterburn: the afterburn would basically do the same thing it does now. The amount of fire damage resulting would depend on how long the enemy tank was under fire. I am suggesting that the afterburn resulting would have to follow this new game mechanic, the temperature increasing exponentially, just like the damage. This will actually nerf the alteration slightly, making hit-and-runs less effective than carefully hosing down a tank, because the first few seconds will do little compared to the later seconds. The blaze WILL die down, and should be buffed, which w/o alt is almost nothing.

[Benefactor 6,888]

Or they could simply install its previous penetration power.

[jordankiller 16]

 

But all this is besides the point as Firebird is decidedly overpowered right now. Yes, the alteration is needed to make it OP. But the alteration is there for the having.

 

The damage output over a 4-5 second period will remain the same. Instead of the damage being linearly distributed over time, the damage will start out slow and do more towards the end of the time period. This will prevent "flash flaming" with the OP alt, without actually nerfing the alt, which would make a lot of players start whining.

[jordankiller 16]

This is gravitational acceleration, but you could imagine it as an enemy's health bar. It starts falling slowly, then goes faster and faster.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

It actually makes sense, and I can actually relate this to welding. Let's say you were going to braze and used a brazing rod and a flame torch. And you stick one end of the rod into the flame, it starts to heat up and then eventually melts when it's been in the flame for around 3-4 seconds.

 

 

Sorry if I confused you with new words :D

 

 

Anyway, I'm sure this idea can relate to many things in real life, and this is one.

[lukey0 27,543]

I really like this idea. It would be interesting to see a 'test' of it in the Test Servers to see how well it works. 

[CuT_TheRe_HeaRTs_OuT 640]

As long as twins is stronger than firebird i am all for it and while we are at it let us double twins damage

Too but linearly not over a curve.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

The burning damage of a firebird adds to his "normal damage" from the first second that it blasts at someone.
And while it does so, the burning damage is increasing each second (it does not deal constant 20 hp per second, but it does like 20 hp in the first second, 2x20 in the 2nd second, 3x20 in the3 3rd second).
The fire mechanics itself is pretty good; it's just the parameter setting that makes it weak (you can see this as the firebird on alteration uses the same mechanics, but different parameters.. and it burn's through almost everything).
 
I share your concern that the stock-firebird (without alteration) is too weak today. The burning damage is almost non-existing and the normal damage does not make up for it. Absolutely agreed.
But I think instead of implementing a new mechanic (programming effort, coding mistakes, ...) the parameters should be adapted to make it better.

[Misery 1,415]

Can't the penetration just be brought back And everything will be peaceful?

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Can't the penetration just be brought back And everything will be peaceful?

You could give the penetration to the stock-firebird, and no penetration to the alteration

[LittleWillie 3,199]

What BlackWasp says is what I was trying to say about matching exponential and linear curves. Changing to an exponential model just for the sake of using an exponential model would cause work only to add up to a system that functions in a very similar manner.

 

I am not against the idea itself. I am for putting and keeping this idea on the very bottom of the priority list.  There are real problems to solve first.

[DESTRUKCO 51]

I think that the compact tanks alteration should be the default fire and have the current firebird stats be an alteration except with penetration added.

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

Realism is clearly not a large motivating factor in updates and turret changes.

 

Now I strongly support a buff for Firebird. But it has to be in another way. Besides, the damage already increases exponentially because of afterburn.

 

Think: on light hulls with Firebird, they often get knocked around quite a bit. So the opponent will take very little damage, then the flame will be knocked aside, and the user will have to re-adjust their aim. Under this update Firebird would be even weaker, far weaker. At least freeze slows the target down so you have a much larger chance of keeping your fire on them.

 

As for realism, we already have hull temperature. The longer an opponent is under continuous fire, the hotter their hull temperature gets, which corresponds to a larger afterburn value to start decreasing from.

 

My idea to buff Firebird would be to make the damage loss over distance much less significant, giving them more effective range. This would also make sense as it is the napalm that is burning anyway.

[NikmanGT 4,362]

Declined

The above Idea does not cater to the balance with respect to current mechanics, will cause more chaos. Furthermore, burning effect is not something that is limited to firebird any more, basically a general status effect now, so it won't be left solely to the firebird but a higher chance that it will get applied to all the turrets which inflict the said status effect, thereby breaking the balance limit further and further.