Limit stacking heat of infernos

[Orbitone]

Should it be possible that firing 4 racks of infernos to create so much heat that it shuts down a mech, it is a chemical reaction so the heat generated would not increase unless area of effect/heatsinks covered expands.

As a suggestion a simple solution would be to limit it to 2 stacks concurrently, it would also take into consideration balancing and the capability of shutting down a mech with one alpha strike when not in a cool environment.

I guess a more advanced solution would be the location covered, with extra heat only when the missile-gel hits a different location to one that is currently on fire, but I assume that is not possible with the game.

 

[Jade_Rook]

I think a better balance would be to reduce the heat damage from ++ infernos. 15 heat per missile plus burning gel is a bit too much in my opinion.

 

[Orbitone]

Yeah there is probably a balance more around what you say, or maybe less up front heat damage with it spread over say 2 or 3 rounds (changing the structure of AMT).

Still, would be nice if it could be calculated instead based upon new locations set on fire but maybe that is more my preference, would be cool in future games for a visual showing such region of a mech model blazing away.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

Some refinement of Inferno/Flamer Mechanics would be very welcome in my opinion.

Both weapon systems are mutually supportive, but eventually a Mech cannot just be... “On Fire Even More and More and More and...”

Perhaps on fire for a longer duration makes sense.

But “Stun Locking” should not be a thing in BATTTLETECH imo.

I think a Mech should be Heated to just one point shy of shutdown and then be able to Walk and Brace (not Melee) without overheating. Melee should lose that last point before shutdown and see the Mech Overheated and Shutdown... at least in my opinion.

There seems to be some very fun and interesting room here to refine Heat Weapons and Heat in BATTLETECH.

 

[Jade_Rook]

Some refinement of Inferno/Flamer Mechanics would be very welcome in my opinion.

Both weapon systems are mutually supportive, but eventually a Mech cannot just be... “On Fire Even More and More and More and...”

Perhaps on fire for a longer duration makes sense.

But “Stun Locking” should not be a thing in BATTTLETECH imo.

I think a Mech should be Heated to just one point shy of shutdown and then be able to Walk and Brace (not Melee) without overheating. Melee should lose that last point before shutdown and see the Mech Overheated and Shutdown... at least in my opinion.

There seems to be some very fun and interesting room here to refine Heat Weapons and Heat in BATTLETECH.

So make heat damage work more like stability? Unable to shutdown in a single turn, but can be pushed right to the edge, then a second unit has to push it over? I like that idea.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

So make heat damage work more like stability? Unable to shutdown in a single turn, but can be pushed right to the edge, then a second unit has to push it over? I like that idea.

You know...........

That was not what I was going for but yeah, I like what you read into my earlier post! : )

 

[TerrorSnail]

eh. stability was a problem because you had:

• LRM builds that could sit behind a LOS blocking rock with all armour stripped multishotting two assault mechs into knockdown every round
• SRM6+++ builds being the best dps at the time also having incidentally a ton of stab as disruption

Whereas Infernos++ builds must execute at close range, don't do much in the way of damage, are vulnerable to missing and are hard countered by the target having heat banks installed, as they can just spend their next action on melee. Infernos also do nothing for your win condition if you dont have another mech action to spend exploiting your target's state, wheras it was possible to incap with knockdown and random headhits from the lrm spam.

Really I think TTS stacking letting you bypass the miss chance vulnerability is where the problematic gameplay occurs.

 

[Orbitone]

eh. stability was a problem because you had:

• LRM builds that could sit behind a LOS blocking rock with all armour stripped multishotting two assault mechs into knockdown every round
• SRM6+++ builds being the best dps at the time also having incidentally a ton of stab as disruption

Whereas Infernos++ builds must execute at close range, don't do much in the way of damage, are vulnerable to missing and are hard countered by the target having heat banks installed, as they can just spend their next action on melee. Infernos also do nothing for your win condition if you dont have another mech action to spend exploiting your target's state, wheras it was possible to incap with knockdown and random headhits from the lrm spam.

Really I think TTS stacking letting you bypass the miss chance vulnerability is where the problematic gameplay occurs.

Yeah your point about vulnerable to missing is why I brought this up as I load more to ensure I can hit several times, but if they all hit I can see it would be possible to shutdown in alpha salvo.
Not sure if that was ever the intention hence the suggestion.
Although when I said 2 stack I mean 4 missiles hitting which is 4 stack, otherwise it is too weak.
Combined with the stacking would be a slightly higher AMT damage maybe over 2 rounds.

Or if the heat damage is reduced (because you have 2 shots) then would be nice if it was 2-3 rounds with a higher AMT dmg forcing a strong management of weapon use for the mech on fire, with a follow-up strike shutting it down.
This would still be stronger than Flamers with their builds and I think that is fine, but they are interesting to look at as a comparison.

 

[Streamlock]

I’ve kinda resigned myself to “BattleTech” logic on a lot of this stuff. Either from abstraction for gameplay mechanics and balance reasons, or due to the wonderful world of the 70’s and 80’s when drugs where cheaper than STEM degrees and nobody really thought about it in any depth.

If you really want to do a logical dive, the inferno gel works as well in an anoxic environment as well as in breathable atmo, so it is self sustaining. It either has its own oxidizer source, or is another reaction entirely.

Is it some form of catalsys? A free radical mediated reaction susceptible to a Trommsdorff-Norris effect? Does it react with the armor substrate directly? What’s the char characteristics of the gel, if any?

Anyway, “putting more on won’t make it hotter” is a question you could write a tome on while drowning in the weeds in a logic dive.

I ask: Is this consistent with the world they have built, and the mechanics they have built the game on? In this case, I agree flamers and infernos could use another pass. Beyond that if you say the technobabble equates to “more=hotter”, I’m good with that as long as it isn’t totally batshit.

 

[Orbitone]

I’ve kinda resigned myself to “BattleTech” logic on a lot of this stuff. Either from abstraction for gameplay mechanics and balance reasons, or due to the wonderful world of the 70’s and 80’s when drugs where cheaper than STEM degrees and nobody really thought about it in any depth.

If you really want to do a logical dive, the inferno gel works as well in an anoxic environment as well as in breathable atmo, so it is self sustaining. It either has its own oxidizer source, or is another reaction entirely.

Is it some form of catalsys? A free radical mediated reaction susceptible to a Trommsdorff-Norris effect? Does it react with the armor substrate directly? What’s the char characteristics of the gel, if any?

Anyway, “putting more on won’t make it hotter” is a question you could write a tome on while drowning in the weeds in a logic dive.

I ask: Is this consistent with the world they have built, and the mechanics they have built the game on? In this case, I agree flamers and infernos could use another pass. Beyond that if you say the technobabble equates to “more=hotter”, I’m good with that as long as it isn’t totally batshit.

The lore sort of explains what Inferno rockets/missiles are, which kinda fits into putting more into the same location will not make it hotter; whether the explanation of the mechanism makes sense to the game is a good point but not necessarily going to change anything nor necessarily should it, and yeah maybe the explanation can be expanded to fit exactly what you raise and changing Infernos should not be based upon a mechanic rationalisation like I did as part of my suggestion.

Kind of funny when you then mention chemical reaction relative to environment and then think of biomes such as Lunar/Martian that then kinda breaks the lore chemical explanation and a can of worms
Never thought of biomes, I guess its at what point it is a balance between the explanation and the game/fiction; I cannot remember any of the books using flamers or inferno devices on lunar regions, and your right there is a break point to using the logic to a game.

But it does not detract from the suggestion the heat should be location based, or if not possible capped/subtly changed as outlined by a few.
I would like it to do a lot more AMT damage forcing several rounds of strict heat management rather than an instant shutdown that is possible with the min/max builds, gives game room to need to use flamers as well that way with flamers being plasma based.

 

[Chaos Theory]

It’s pretty messed up to be able to instantly shutdown a mech with 4 Infernos++.

I would suggest removing the +heat damage bonus and replacing it with something like -tonnage, +ammo, or +duration.

 

[Icewraith]

Infernos also make crazy-good head hit weapons since they deal so little damage. Considering they’re glorified SRM-2s with limited ammo, - .5 tons per + and no bonus heat damage is probably the way to go.

 

[Stridercal]

Counterpoint: Infernos should be terrifying, at least to pilots of 3025 tech. Time to reread Decision at Thunder Rift