Removal of Vehicle Heat (2.7.0)

As some of you might already know, vehicle heat in its current form has been removed from the next version. First I'd like to outline our reasons for removing it, as well as what led us to this decision, plus a brief background as to why it was included in Empires in the first place.

#1 Performance & Action

For 2.7.0 we have increased damage and cycle times by 2x on average. This was done to reduce projectile spam (primary reason) and provide more of a punch to initial engagements. The latter is important as many felt that matches in Empires would drag on too much due to the following factors:

• Tanks hitting the heat limit or being able to retreat before receiving a finishing blow.
• Too many tanks on the field that were difficult to kill, especially in the case of late-game heavies. The ability to quickly retreat due to initial volleys not being damaging enough or enemy tanks hitting the heat limit exacerbated this problem.

These changes were thoroughly tested in vehicle combat (only) matches at various player counts over a period of weeks. While initially certain weapons felt too powerful (more on this later), overall the feedback was positive and the opinion was that we were moving in the right direction. After several tweaks and tests we hit a "sweet spot" were people felt overall satisfied with the new tank combat, though again certain weapons remained an issues.
There was one complaint in particular though that stuck. Heat. At some point we also increased the heat by x2. Combined with less projectiles fired overall the perception was that people we being overly penalized for missing shots, both because landing a shot was more important now there was more time between each shot, as well because they'd overheat quickly and the new mechanics (were you cannot overheat from firing) meant they'd either have to retreat or take a beating.
It was then that we decided to remove heat altogether as we couldn't come up with a satisfactory rule set that would both make sense and prevent this form of action stalling that frustrated people.

After and during another round of testing we again asked for feedback. It was universally positive. When asked if people were missing out, they stated they didn't. Heat felt unnecessary, even unnoticeable. In fact, people considered it an improvement. There was no longer a sense of combat being stalled right when the action really got going. Contrary to initial fears, people were still able to retreat to safety, but less often. And rushes would no longer bog down due to heat issues, thus keeping the momentum going and preventing long drawn out stalemates when the match was clearly overwhelmingly in favour of either team. At the same time, losing teams or those bogged down had more of an opportunity to organize effective rushes, and the balance between vehicles itself was less lopsided. Lighter vehicles (and in some tests their MkII variants) now stood a chance in the hands of experienced drivers.

The only weapons that really proved to be problematic were light salvo and nukes. Both which were later balanced. Nukes by not allowing NF heavies to fit two at once (One 3 slot and one 2 slot), and light salvo by not allowing more than 4 LSMLs on a NF heavy.

#2 Background

The heat mechanic as it exists was based on the one found in the Mechwarrior series, where it was very much required. Maps were larger (Max combat range being 1.2 Km) and certain weapons were incredibly powerful, capable of killing an enemy mech in seconds from extreme ranges. The amount of heat a weapon produced was balanced by it's range and DPS. Weapons with high DPS - such as heavy missile launchers/rockets and certain lasers, or high range - such as most lasers would produce a lot of heat so they couldn't be spammed. Autocannons (High damage/low range) and Missile Launchers (Low/Medium damage, medium/high range) produced comparatively a lot less heat.
This in turn prevented mechs from being zapped/insta killed from the other side of the map with impunity.

In empires however, this really is unnecessary. Vehicle MGs aren't particularly powerful on their own or very accurate, nukes are slow in terms of speed, dps and RoF, railguns have low ammunition (as opposed to MW were you could increase the amount of ammo a weapon came into battle with) and there really aren't any weapons that both share the extreme range and the ability to kill a fully armoured (reactive/capacitive) heavy tank in a matter of seconds.

#3 Counterarguments

Still. Some people are not convinced. Either bringing up the issue of it being a long-time core gameplay mechanic or that heat prevented sustained high DPS.

First of all. Removing heat combat wasn't our initial goal. Initially we wanted to reduce lag from the massive amount of projectiles (Salvo missiles, long range cannons, etc.) and improve vehicle combat fluidity by making it a bit more lethal without radically altering DPS. Us removing heat from the equation was the natural result of player feedback and us not getting the new system to work within the heat combat framework. What was initially an experiment that triggered many doubts, turned out to be a well-received change. Both by players (from new players to old vets) and developers/contributors.

That said. I'll move unto our rebuttals.

Heat should be kept because it is a core gameplay mechanic. We disagree. While heat was a long-term mechanic, keeping a gameplay mechanic for the sake of keeping it or maintaining "complexity" is something we do not agree with. In the end the goal is to develop and maintain an enjoyable game that doesn't lean toward either side too much, thus allowing an element of surprise and making sure every match remains (somewhat) unique and interesting. A mechanic should have more qualities than it just being a long-term mechanic. There is also a precedent for removing obsolete or incompatible mechanics in the past. Like the switch from hard to soft counters for armours.

Heat combat should be kept because it prevents rushes or sustained high DPS. We believe that that the benefits do not outweigh the cons of sluggish and (for many) unsatisfactory vehicle combat, and frequent player-hemorrhaging stalemates. While the concerns are obviously not entirely without merit and these changes will not prevent all stalemates, it is widely perceived as being a step in the right direction. Vehicle combat is more vibrant and dynamic than before as a result. (The latter referring to lighter vehicles being more able to counter higher chassis through skill, and weapons and armours being more unique without promoting hard counters) In the tests we also didn't find much of a problem with sustained high DPS except in cases like the aforementioned Light Salvo and Nukes. Some weapons that were previously more balanced around heat have been tweaked to instead balance them more thoroughly around other aspects such as accuracy, DPS, falloff, gravity, ammunition, cycle or reload time.

Heat combat should be kept because else it would unbalance nukes. We have already addressed in a satisfactory manner, as per community and developer feedback.

Heat combat should be kept because there needs to be a way to slow tanks down. We'll have more on this in the next section.

We'd also like to avoid hyperboles claiming that if heat goes, so could the Command Vehicle.
The commander aspect is not only fundamental to the RTS/FPS experience, it also offers a wide myriad of benefits: from tactical oversight to developing an overall strategy (unique in its scope compared to all other RTS/FPS titles), research, etc. On the other hand, heat combat is not a prerequisite for having (any) vehicle combat, nor for maintaining the RTS/FPS environment.

#4 The Future of Heat Combat

In regards to the last point we'd like to affirm that stun stickies will continue to disable movement and weapon firing for affected vehicles.
We have also started on a draft for an alternative system that would slow down tanks (but not prevent them from firing) if they were to hit close to the heat limit. In the end though, this shouldn't be considered confirmed. Nor are we aren't convinced this is either necessary or a solution to a problem that we didn't encounter in the first place during out tests. It is also worth noting that this would still penalize action, something that we have sought to undo.

#5 Feedback

Obviously 2.7.0 is still well over a week from being released and additional tests are scheduled for next week. If you wish to leave feedback, feel free to do so. We are still willing to consider arguments from all sides regarding this arguably radical divergence from previous versions. In the end though we are confident that we would be taking a step in the right direction, as shown by the positive feedback we have so far received.

 

Pretty much what Lazybum said. We'll first try no-heat combat, and then we'll see if some sort of slow-down mechanic is required.
There are also many things we can do with the old engines that do not involve heat. Including balancing around acceleration, top & reverse speed, stall on hit (which I could increase, including for each engine independently) and even turbo.

I general I think it is important we avoid mechanics that penalize or stall action.

I'd also like to add that keeping heat in its current form would be a major development hassle, sucking up a lot of our time just to get it right. In the end the question is, should vehicle combat be balanced around heat? Or should it be balanced around enjoyability? We went with the latter.

 

Normally I am too lazy to write a proper post as well, but meh, I hopped in.

In short, I fail to see how the removal of heat is going to solve the problems you addressed.
But this has the potential to add more problems.

If you increase the cycle time it's going to drag out the fights even more, because most players, include vets have poor accuracy.
I am sure it worked simply because testers did not have a clue about the doubled damage of all weapons. This "advantage" will probably be somewhat mitigated when players have more knowledge about the updated weapons.

Without heat, inexperienced players will have more chance to retreat successfully while experienced players will still be able to work out a way to retreat safely.
Experienced players don't really overheat their tanks that much, even when they are in hot pursue.

Even if those changes will speed up the fights, they will make the winning team snowball even harder because meh, you can't retreat efficiently.

Recently I am playing World of Tanks.
IMHO if you really want to stop people from retreating 24/7 all day all night, you should drop the acceleration of all engines and specifically drop vehicle's reversing & turning speed.

Another thing, doubled damage & reload time =/= original damage & reload time, despite they have the same DPS.
Basically, let's all research HE because you can just instantly kill any infantry now.

Oh and, this is unrelated but I don't want to create a new thread, have you guys considered making the top side of vehicles a common weak point? We all know the hitbox of the top side is retardedly crap atm.
Basically, attacks from the top side will deal probably half damage directly to the hull, but only direct hit counts, splash damage doesn't work.

I know words don't weight that much so I will be there for the test on 27th to check them out, if that's before the release.

 

Not solve. Rather mitigate by a lot. There are more issues with Empires at the moment that cause boring stalemates, but this is a step in solving that issue.

This was mitigated by more lethal and faster weapons. A first volley is a lot more deadly now, and focused fire is a lot more effective initially. Certain weapons like Railguns have also been changed to fit in better with the current direction. They are now slower firing, but also have the highest damage per shot of any cannon.
Our initial motivation was to reduce projectile proliferation that caused serious performance issues and even crashes. These changes in it self will already help reduce these issues.

We noticed that performance improved when people became more familiar with the changes.

Indeed. The idea wasn't to make retreating nigh impossible, but rather to cull the worst excesses as often seen on maps like Slaughtered, Coast, Canyon, etc. and even open maps like Duststorm. Where (above certain player counts) matches would devolve into prolonged stalemates due to a sprawl of heavy tanks, with weapons not being lethal or fast enough to break the stalemate. In essence, this is a way to penalize turtling while promoting mobility (including the form of dodging enemy fire). With first volleys now being up to several times more lethal, being a sitting duck is a huge disadvantage. Other solutions have also been worked on and implemented, such as map revamps and the fixing of hitboxes and projectile behaviour.

Not a problem in it self considering matches would often drag on for well over 70, 90 or even 120 minutes. Without having the vibrant gameplay (ever changing bases, fronts, etc.) to compensate for the increased length.
Also note that with these changes it is easier for losing teams to organise rushes or breakthroughs, and lighter vehicles are now better equiped to counter - through skill - better armed and armoured opponents. Research changes have also been implemented. Such as a change in research times for nearly all items (including chassis) and the addition of new light/single slot weapons for the AFV and Light Tank.

This is another change that will see implementation. Speed reduction was ill received, but changes in acceleration are being worked on.

This problem (HE and other cannons instantly killing infantry) has also been addressed by tweaking resists, buffing infantry anti-vehicle capabilities and making it possible for all classes to pick their own armours next version.

Hitboxes are still being looked into. Either way, I'm looking forward to the next (public!) test.

 

Pretty much. At the moment we don't have alternative models or skins to represent armour changes. But I hope we'll be able to add that in v2.8.

I'd also like to add that I am working on script support for additional heat (combat) mechanics and functionality. Engines will be able to slow down or speed up when nearing the heat cap, or increase and decrease cycle times. Including disallowing any movement or firing as in the current version.
Support for different sounds and properly displaying differing heat limits is also being worked on. Though that remains a secondary goal.

 

This is nice and all but im not looking forward to getting gibbed by cannons. The lingering issue is heavy tank combat, not tanks needing to shit on infantry.

.. is pretty much a non factor as long as the driver is not stupid and knows you can resupply mid combat from an ammo box.

*disable foward/backwards movement. You can stil turn while stunned because of reasons.

 

Infantry/tank balance is seeing a revision as well, with new selectable armours for infantry. Also anti-vehicle infantry weapons have been buffed. (RPG, stickies, etc.)

In stationary mode. Railguns have changed in such a way that we didn't found it an issue anymore during tests.

Correction. Yes.

 

So what, thats not tagged as a bug?

 

It could be seen as such. But I think of it more as an ascended feature. : 3

 

How is it a feature where it counteracts the whole purpose of a stun for one and in case of nf heavies straight up kills the scout.

 

Being that this isn't the first time it is mentioned. I'll make a thread about it.

 

Sorry Catface, but here goes a slight rant. It is not personal, just now you are in the driver seat now.

Stop worrying about changing game mechanics. There are so many more important aspects that need fixed, have needed fixed, and for whatever reason, continue to be ignored. Dual firing a cannon on BE heavy, often results in one shell flying off in a 90 degree tangent, thus becoming totally ineffective for that volley. Whatever the reason is that this happens, should be top priority on fixes, as this totally affects the entire game, no matter the heat characteristics. If this is caused by collisions of the shells, then fix the bones on the model. Adding new weapons, altering mechanics, etc., these should fall in line after major bug issues are fixed. Stock models have obvious glitches in them. Clipping issues exist on both armories, allowing wall hacks to the interiors.

There currently exists no option to allow a mapper to prevent damage to a barracks or any structure completely. For whatever reason, applying a damagefilter to a structure does not calculate an engineer decalc or a scout's sabbing. This by far is a secondary request, as it can be overcome.

It's easy to be lulled into the easy changes, lord knows it has been done in the past. What I would love to see, and I am sure I am not alone in this, is that you step up and attack the hard stuff. Fixing the easy stuff always has brought us to where we are today, a dying mod. Bring the game back to where there are no major bugs in the current iteration of it, they attack from there.

 

I never really under stand why people complain about this one..If you don't want the barracks to take damage then just place it as a prop and place spawn points in side of it.

Also tank combat is abut 50% of Empires. Fixing / improving should always be a priority.

@Catface people want heat so bad maybe you should tripple the heat on all weapons. Then when they see how bad it is to balance by heat. Maybe then they will stop crying.

 

And hence why I said secondary. The solution though has its own issues. King is prime example, because this method was used, and code changes caused the model to become dis-oriented, effectively breaking the illusion of rax.

And for the heat, multiplying the heat by 3 is not what we are asking, just leave it alone for now, because "IF" you actually play the game, it is not an issue greater than the bugs that exist in the game currently.

 

Heat was just an easy way to balance. Then it kind of grew into what it is now. Now Engines and weapons are balanced around heat. So in a way the solution became a problem. So not only is it not solving the issue of balance it's now making it harder to balance Empires.
Driving tank = fun
Sitting in over heated tank = not fun.

The reason I said heat X 3 is for some odd reason some of you people can seem to see the problems with empires. So magnify the problem so maybe some of you would see it.

People keep crying about heat being removed but not 1 person can come up with any valid reasons to keep it.