Suggestion: Eliminate the heat attack announcement rule

[Mole]

I was surprised when I returned to the server after several years that there was a special rule in effect requiring players to announce heat attacks by infernos or flamers against meks or aeros when simfire is enabled, which is now the default setting. I think this special rule is unnecessary because heat management and wariness of heat-causing weapons have always been an essential part of the game. This special rule really only addresses one specific situation if simfire were not in effect: heat weapons fired before the targeted unit has fired giving the targeted player the option not to fire to reduce heat buildup.

I like simfire not only because it speeds up the game but because it better reflects the chaos of battle...you can still recognize trends such as fire being concentrated on one unit at the end of the firing phase but not do shot-by-shot analysis which is completely preposterous on a battlefield with weapons blazing. We have also already nerfed infernos by limiting them to SRM2s (no inferno Javelins, sigh) since there are very few units with more than two such launchers and flamer-induced heat is only an issue if you let something like a Firestarter get close, which players should be paying attention to regardless.

So my suggestion is that we eliminate the special rule requiring announcement of heat attacks and instead expect players to be aware of the presence and risk of heat-causing weapons on the battlefield or suffer the consequences.

[obese pigeon]

Hey Mole, while you may not care about the loss of targeting information that simfire brings with it, other players might.

I knew this problem existed in simfire from day 1. Seeing lances specifically put together to exploit the information gap convinced me that something had to be done - think a 3025 lance packing 8-12 SRM2s launchers loaded with infernos.

[Mole]

I hear you, but I think the announcement approach is not only annoying for everyone, it takes away the responsibility of the targeted player to be aware of the risk. Artillery and IDF LRMs are also “trick lance” weapons that present specific hazards but we don’t nerf them by requiring players to announce the attacks. Infernos are a weapon specifically designed to overheat meks and need to be respected but that’s just part of the game. Infernos are also nasty in provoking crits in vehicles and killing infantry but we don’t require announcements for those targets. If a player ignores the fact that there are lots of SRM2s in play and gets, ahem, burned, then they will know next time.

[obese pigeon]

It doesn't annoy me. And i haven't seen anyone else complaining about this. I'm pretty sure players who read the forum understand the rationale for this.

Maybe it's just you Mole

[Mole]

Or maybe a couple of players lost favorite meks to what they considered to be "trick lances" using SRM2s and this rule was created to nerf their use rather than forcing those players to adapt their lances and tactics?

I have played a couple of games against onboard artillery recently, so I'd like to propose a rule that such users have to tell the opposing player in advance where they'll be shooting. Seems fair, no?

[obese pigeon]

Or maybe a couple of players lost favorite meks to what they considered to be "trick lances" using SRM2s and this rule was created to nerf their use rather than forcing those players to adapt their lances and tactics?

I have played a couple of games against onboard artillery recently, so I'd like to propose a rule that such users have to tell the opposing player in advance where they'll be shooting. Seems fair, no?

False equivalence...

[Mole]

Obviously, OP, we disagree on the fundamental principle here. The current special rule does seem to place the responsibility on the player employing infernos or flamers in heat mode. That seems odd considering we are talking about weapons and tactics that are both canon in the game and legal on the server. Why not place the responsibility on those concerned with such heat attacks to request simfire be turned off? I suspect that very few players would do so, which suggests to me that the current special rule is a solution in search of a problem.

[Illician Lancers]

I have to agree with Mole here. Infernos is been part of canon, TT, megamek and the server like forever. If a lance come with as OP said 10 or 12 srms 2 and bring infernos and we are using simfire as default. Personally i expect for the players against those lances to made an educated guest no for the players with the infernos to tell where are they going to be fired. That defeat the purpose of the simfire 100%.
This rule made the use of infernos tactics in a simfire setting useless. As Mole said what is going to be next in a simfire, announcing where arty off board or IDF is going to be fired because some players maybe find unjust no knowing where idf or off board arty is going to be fired.

If some players find hard to play against infermos in simfire then take off simfire. Otherwise what this rule is doing is going around the simfire and benefic the players that need to fight against infernos.

[Mock26]

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the (BattleTech) rules is that when declaring fire under the alternating unit system you are not obligated to announce your heat causing attacks at any given point of the firing phase. [Edit: what I mean is you are not required to declare heat attacks first, you can declare your units in whatever order you want, so heat attacks could be declared first, last, or anywhere in between.] Nor do you have to announce before your opponent fires his first unit that you are using heat weapons. You may not even know at the beginning of the round if you are going to use them. So what happens when you announce that your unit is firing inferno rounds at an enemy unit that has already fired? Your opponent has absolutely no chance of adjusting their fire to compensate for potential additional heat build up. And there is nothing that can be done if you have other units fire heat causing weapons at the same target. No rule can prevent this.

In a simfire game it pretty much amounts to the same thing. The rule is only effective if you just so happen to be firing on an enemy unit that has not yet fired. And it is only truly effective if you let your opponent know all the units that will be firing heat weapons on a unit. What I mean is, if I fire first and announce I am firing a single flamer at my opponent's 'Mech he may, for example, opt to fire one less medium laser, but still fire all his other weapons. My next unit then fires three SRM2s with inferno rounds at the same target. His firing sequence is locked. He cannot change it now that he knows that even more heat weapons are being targeted against him. The rule has served no purpose.

There is simply no way to enforce this rule in such a way to make it do what it is supposed to do. You simply cannot require people to announce all of their heat attacks at the beginning of the heat phase, in large part because Players may not know right away who they are firing at. From round to round I do not keep close track of the condition of my opponent's units. Sometimes I might remember that a unit has a weakened right leg or is at +7 heat, but often I have to look at units during the firing phase to be reminded of this. And this takes time. It can take additional time as I often cycle through all of my units to look at potential targets before I even start to fire. And in many games by the time I start firing my opponent has already finished firing one or more of his units. If I then decide to fire heat weapons on one of those units the rule is pointless. He has already fired and cannot do anything about it.

This rule also opens people up to accusations of cheating. Someone can accuse their opponent of willfully delaying firing their inferno rounds to get around the rule, and there is no way to defend yourself against such accusations. If someone just happens to fire their unit(s) with heat weapons last, what is to stop someone from accusing them of circumventing the spirit of the rule? And what defense do they have? They can say, "It was not intentional" but will their opponent believe them? And what happens when they do it over and over again? I have played against more than a few players who pay no attention to order of fire. Every single round they fire their 'Mechs in order. If their last unit has heat weapons then that unit is fired last, by which time most of their opponent's units will have already fired. They could easily be accused of circumventing the rule when they are not actually doing so.

Do not get me wrong, I fully understand the intent of the rule, but I think it is trying to be a solution for a problem which seems far bigger than it actually is. As I mentioned above, when alternating attack declarations attacks there is no requirement to announce heat attacks first and as such there is no guarantee you can adjust your fire for potential heat attacks.

I think a better alternative would be requiring a Player to announce in the lobby or during deployment which units have inferno rounds (no need to declare flamers). It is then up to the individual Players to factor the possibility of extra heat into their tactics.

[Mole]

I agree 100% with Illician Lancers and Mock26 though I don’t think any sort of announcement is necessary. We don’t require announcement of other ammo types, not even rare things on our server like Artemis or Arrow IV, so why should infernos be any different? As I said before, if certain players feel disadvantaged by simfire in the presence of infernos (despite the flaws in that argument that Mock26 explained) then those players are always free to play without simfire.

[Maxwell Albritten]

I'm in camp "this is a pointless rule". I can honestly say that I've found that most players just wait until I have already fired off a unit to declare the infernos anyways, and on top of that 90% of the time there is really only one unit they would logically be firing infernos at anyways.

In fact, the ruling has impacted my play as I avoid packing infernos now to avoid a scenario where I forget to declare or something and thus giving my opponent an opportunity to cry foul.

[obese pigeon]

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the (BattleTech) rules is that when declaring fire under the alternating unit system you are not obligated to announce your heat causing attacks at any given point of the firing phase.

Unfortunately, you are wrong about this as you suspected. You need to declare fire against your opponent's units - players cannot read minds in a tabletop setting; You NEED to tell him what you are shooting at and with what upfront.

Given the above, do you get the point now?

[Mole]

Point of order…my understanding is that this special rule was created to deal with a perceived “loophole” caused by the use of heat weapons with simfire enabled in the online game environment.

Any comparison with tabletop is simply invalid because, by definition, *everything* must be declared in a tabletop game either to the other player or to a game master.

When simfire is not enabled, the online game environment only provides an indication of which units are firing at which units and it is incumbent on the player being fired upon to mouse over the lines of fire to know what’s been fired.

As multiple people have pointed out, without simfire enabled it is only possible to adjust tactics due to heat attacks if the unit being fired upon has not yet fired. That’s a very narrow set of circumstances for a special rule since the alternative is simply not to use simfire, which is always an option.

Obese Pigeon, the feedback so far seems to indicate that this special rule reflects your personal preference more than the consensus of the community since not one other player has joined this thread to defend it.

[Mock26]

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the (BattleTech) rules is that when declaring fire under the alternating unit system you are not obligated to announce your heat causing attacks at any given point of the firing phase.

Unfortunately, you are wrong about this as you suspected. You need to declare fire against your opponent's units - players cannot read minds in a tabletop setting; You NEED to tell him what you are shooting at and with what upfront.

Given the above, do you get the point now?

My apologies, I meant to say at any specific point. What I mean is, you are not required to declare heat attacks first. Say you have four ‘Mechs and only has flamers. When declaring your attacks under alternating system you can declare your heat attacks at any given time, meaning it could be your first ‘Mech, or your second, or your third, or your last. That is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. It was a poor choice of words on my part.

I have no edited my previous post to clear this up.

[obese pigeon]

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the (BattleTech) rules is that when declaring fire under the alternating unit system you are not obligated to announce your heat causing attacks at any given point of the firing phase.

Unfortunately, you are wrong about this as you suspected. You need to declare fire against your opponent's units - players cannot read minds in a tabletop setting; You NEED to tell him what you are shooting at and with what upfront.

Given the above, do you get the point now?

My apologies, I meant to say at any specific point. What I mean is, you are not required to declare heat attacks first. Say you have four ‘Mechs and only has flamers. When declaring your attacks under alternating system you can declare your heat attacks at any given time, meaning it could be your first ‘Mech, or your second, or your third, or your last. That is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. It was a poor choice of words on my part.

I have no edited my previous post to clear this up.

I get that. Firing is declared alternately in the base tabletop game, and the "smart" thing to do would be to declare your heat causing weapons last. Of course, the smart thing to do, would also be for your opponent to declare firing on what you could be targeting with infernos / flamers AFTER you've declared.

Unfortunately, with simfire, there is no way to replicate the subtleties of this mind game. What's left in simfire is an information gap in the firing phase big enough to drive a truck through.

My personal preference is not to have simfire at all. I'd also like to have arty in every single game heh

[obese pigeon]

The fundamental problem here is there is a difference in perception with regards to how important this information gap is.

More casual players probably don't pay attention to this at all, and to have to declare heat causing weapons is an annoyance at worst. However, the top tier players appreciate this information - i've even been asked to clarify the exact number of inferno tubes i'm firing.

[Mock26]

I understand the importance of the information. My whole point is that a lot of the time the information does you no good.

[obese pigeon]

I understand the importance of the information. My whole point is that a lot of the time the information does you no good.

Exactly, that's what you feel. A top tier player may not feel the same way...

[Mole]

I understand your perspective, OP, but it’s interesting that none of those concerned top-tier players have chosen to express themselves in this thread in over a month.

[Illician Lancers]

I agree with Mole. None of those top tier players that you said appreciate the info have said anything and to be honest there aren't many top tier players around at all right now or for a really long time. There are 33 players active more or less right not from those 33 said the top 10 are the best players in ranking and ELO which are this 10 guys from 1st to 10th rank:

Rank Name Rating House House Rank Comment
1 obese pigeon -- Capellan Confederation
2 Illician Lancers -- Draconis Combine
3 Chavo -- Lyran Commonwealth The Croc of Blinding
4 Repasy -- Free Worlds League
5 Citan -- Capellan Confederation
6 Maxwell Albritten -- Draconis Combine
7 Ferahgo05 -- Draconis Combine
8 Brown Adept -- Periphery
9 Ares -- Federated Suns
10 Jackal -- Comstar

Assuming for what i read that OP would maybe like knowing he is been fired infernos correct me if im wrong. I dont care about about knowing the info because i can made an educated guest where the infernos are going to be fired on my units, honestly isnt rocket science. Chavo for how i see him playing i think he can made an educated guest too i dont think he will be very concern about the info, repasy is an old veteran player i doubt he will worried at all about the info, citan is too agressive to worried about the info and he likes to get into fire his units if that benefic him so i assume get hit but infernos inst a worried, Maxwell i know he can made an educated guest, ferahgo im sure he can do it too so i dont think he is really worried about infernos, BA im no sure if he worries about that kind of info or no but i think he has experience enough to made an educated guest, Ares i can be mistaken but he is an old veteran and he knows how to handle infernos so i assuming he can made educated guest and no worry much and jackal i doubt infernos will affect his play style, im sure he can made a very good educated guest.

So from the top 10 ( which can be consider top tier players ) maybe 2 players can be bother with the info of knowing where the infernos goes to be fired the other 8 i doubt they will concern with the info. I can be wrong of course but i played enough vs those players and see enough of their games to think im not too far away of been right and none of those top tier players apart from me and max and said anything in favor or against the declaration of the firing infernos or flammers in simfire.

So I wonder who or how many of those top tier player need the info so badly that a rule have to be made to declare infernos in simfire? Definitely a curious question with probably an interesting answer.

[obese pigeon]

I understand your perspective, OP, but it’s interesting that none of those concerned top-tier players have chosen to express themselves in this thread in over a month.

It doesn't matter if they do or do not.

I doubt anyone wants to get involved in a thread which seems a bit laden with emotional grievance.

Anyway, i've thought this through carefully and shared some (but not all!) of the thought process with you.

If you still feel aggrieved by the rule, we can talk further.

[Mole]

“Aggrieved” is not the word, just “mildly annoyed” is more accurate. Like others have mentioned, I am leery of forgetting to declare and nervous about using inferno ammo for that reason, though I still do use them. I just don’t think this burden should be on the player choosing to use legal ammo and canon tactics but rather it should be up to the player who sees this information gap as a problem not to use simfire.

[obese pigeon]

“Aggrieved” is not the word, just “mildly annoyed” is more accurate. Like others have mentioned, I am leery of forgetting to declare and nervous about using inferno ammo for that reason, though I still do use them.

I hear your concerns about forgetting to declare, not using heat damage on mechs is one option as you've pointed out.

Also, i think the players here are generally nice. If it matters to them, they'd probably remind you

I just don’t think this burden should be on the player choosing to use legal ammo and canon tactics but rather it should be up to the player who sees this information gap as a problem not to use simfire.

In the ideal world, our game client should have the capacity to display targeting information even in simfire games. Given that this is not the case, and that (most) humans don't have ESP, it becomes necessary for the one who has information to proactively share it in order to bridge the gap.