![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
Once upon a time there was a discussion about a changed fire-system in the internal boards of the clonk.de forum. One suggestion was like the following:Incineration should be given a strength. Not only "be on fire" and "be not on fire". Therefore each object would have to remember _how much_ it burns at the moment - that could be a bar on the left site of the screen for Clonks, e.g. - ranging from 0% to 100% (from now on referred to as "burning-value").
Fire below ~50% (juggling with numbers is always possible later) would slowly ease off while fire above 50% would slowly become stronger. Fire would of course deal damage according to the current strength (while the influence of the burning-value to the damage may not be thaaat big..).
Benefits:
Currently fire is an all-or-nothing-affair. If you can, for example, set your enemy on fire in Minor Melee you have won, wohoo. Fun.
And to have other fire stuff balanced you even need an additional rule: the common Extinguisher that is used in about every knight-melee-scenario because of the fire-arrows.
With the changed system fire could vary in strength. Fire arrows could for example strengthen the burning-value of a Clonk by 5-10%: If you are hit by only one arrow the fire would ease off fast (and deal some damage), but as you are hit by more and more arrows of your enemy the fire would grow stronger: If your foe manages to raise your burning-value above 50% the fire would stop to die down and would even grow stronger over time - still a dangerous hazard.
Same goes for firebombs (if they are to be in the game): You would not die once you have been hit - the situation would only become more dangerous if you didn't get out of the flames fast.
And since I know that some players don't like melees at all I do not only want to cover those aspects of course!
Hence, consider following situation: You walk from your mine back home glad that you have found that extra large chunk of gold. Some random lightning incinerated some random tree between your mine and your base already half a minute ago. Now, as you come by that tree (which is nearly burnt down by now and can be even hardly be spotted anymore) you catch fire and die before you get back into your base - end of story.
With the additional fire system the small tree would raise your burning-level a bit - but as long as you are not going to camp there, such things will most likely never kill you.
Huge, burning objects (like that castle your enemy just blew up) or lava would raise your burning-level quite fast above 50% and therefore could still kill you easily.
I liked that renewed fire-system back then and I still do. It would allow us to get rid of the stupid extinguisher (which is only there because otherwise one would not have been able to balance the fire stuff) and could bring balance to the aspects of "fire" in Clonk once and for all
The object-nearly-burned-but-most-dangerous-problem could be fixed by decreasing the incineration chance by size, but that's not half as good as your system.
That the behaviour fire in the game needs to be redesigned is needless to say. But this "burning strength" with burning bars or "remaining burn time"-counters goes too far. This would overcomplicate fire damage as if fire and incineration is some kind of central game principle which needs to be this elaborate.How about the incineration of a clonk lasts just for a fixed and short time (regardless of by what he was hit). If the clonk gets incinerated again while burning, he burns again for that fixed time (which would be a few seconds).
>How about the incineration of a clonk lasts just for a fixed and short time (regardless of by what he was hit). If the clonk gets incinerated again while burning, he burns again for that fixed time (which would be a few seconds).
That would still leave the inaccuracy that a hardly-spottable tree would deal the same damage as a huge castle or a firebomb (or lava!) supposing that the player gets out of the danger quite fast
I remember that discussion quite well because it was me who started it, and I still like the idea of fire not being equivalent to death unless you've got a water barrel on you.Still, newton does have a point - things like:
> Fire below ~50% (juggling with numbers is always possible later) would slowly ease off while fire above 50% would slowly become stronger
will only confuse the player, for he can't see his fire level accurately ingame.
If fire has certain conditions for its behaviour, the player should be able to make them out right away.
So, here is my suggestion for a simplified fire which does not suck:
- Incineration strength is proportional to the burning objects/incinerated object size ratio
- Incineration strength is proportional to the burning objects fire strength
- Fire strength adds up on incineration
- Fire strength decreases always(?) (Alternatively, one could use the incineration-value from the definition to handle if the objekt "supports" or "suppresses" fire, defaulting to suppressing.)
- Fire strength is visualised by the amount of fire particles on the burning object
So, in the end, this behaviour breaks down to "big fires are dangerous, little ones not so much" to the player - something which he should be expecting.
Next up in the process of de-sucking the fire: The reduction of the con-value of burning objects. While me might have to use it with structures (in lack of something better), things like half-burned pieces of wood, half-burned bows or arrows were always annoying.
The game needs to be crystal clear on communicating the player which objects are usable and which are not, so we should make sure to include a "burned"-definition for each inflammable object. Alternatively, we could think about a "standard" burned-definition, which just takes the graphics from the original object and modulates its color to black. These could just break into ashes after some time.
>- Fire strength is visualised by the amount of fire particles on the burning object
As I was the one who reworked the fire effects (originally for the Fantasy pack), I can tell you that this would look shitty. Perhaps one could indicate it by the amount of black smoke coming from the fire.
>"big fires are dangerous, little ones not so much"
I like it!
>The game needs to be crystal clear on communicating the player which objects are usable and which are not
Yes. How about burning collectible objects are not collectible (automatically dropped), objects than can be grabbed cannot be grabbed (automatically released) and objects with entrances can not be entered (contents are ejected). Plus, the get a dark color modulation.
> [less fire particles] would look shitty.
Well, we might need to make new fire effects fitting this system as well...
> How about burning collectible objects are not collectible [...]
I like how simple that idea is - BUT we should keep in mind that some things could be intentionally collectable when burning, such as the flame arrow. Also, not being able to grab burning vehicles might be frustrating when you can't move something burning (e.g. a tree) out of your way/base/mine..
Maybe we could combine those ideas. There would still be the proposed general "burned object" which changes its graphics, category, name and shape into those of the original object.
Definitions that don't have a specific "burnTo"-Value automatically change into those on incineration. However, since the "burned object" does not have any script, you would not be able to control it anymore, and it is also not collectable.
For any more specific burned-objects, like buildings that can be rebuild, there should be an own burned-definition anyway.
>- Fire strength is visualised by the amount of fire particles on the burning object
What about showing a little fire only at a small point of the building, and the stronger the fire gets, the "more" the larger are the particle-emitting areas.
So if I don't get you the wrong way: You proposal is basically to use the described system but with the threshold value set to either 0% ("supports fire") or 100% ("surpresses fire")?>Alternatively, we could think about a "standard" burned-definition, which just takes the graphics from the original object and modulates its color to black. These could just break into ashes after some time.
Or we could just burn everything to charcoal :)
> So if I don't get you the wrong way: [...]
You didn't! As I said, the system you described is basically what I described in the internal boards back then. ;)
I just wanted to introduce the general idea to link the "displayed" size of the fire to it's actual strength, since the fires size and maybe strength is the only thing the player sees in the end.
Concerning that threshold:
We could and maybe should test-implement a simple "the harder to ignite (=incinerate-value), the more fire strength can be 'suppressed'"-solution for the start.
But we shouldn't decide yet. I highly suspect that only testing and more testing will lead to an good solution for this system. For example: We might attempt to calculate the threshold for each object depending on it's components. The more wood, the easier it will burn - But this could also lead to unsatisfying results! ;)
>I just wanted to introduce the general idea to link the "displayed" size of the fire to it's actual strength, since the fires size and maybe strength is the only thing the player sees in the end.
Sure, nothing against it. Still I wouldn't do that for some special fire-stuff (like arrows - or we could give them a huge impressive smoke trail!)
>..testing and more testing..
yepp :)
>Fire below ~50% (juggling with numbers is always possible later) would slowly ease off while fire above 50% would slowly become stronger.
What about Setting this value in the DefCore.txt? That stone-buildings have a higher value so it's more difficult to get them "really burning" (that they don't get extinguished by themselves), and wooden huts have lower values.
We could also change the extinguish-rule, so it just rises this threshold-value.
![[us]](/mwf/flags/us.png "United States")
Admittedly I have a bias towards more "realistic" like simulations, but here is what I would like to see.
You use a couple variables. One for the strength of the fire, one for the remaining fuel for the fire to burn, and a modifier based on the current wind-strength.
The idea is that larger objects and buildings have more fuel to burn. They can burn longer and bigger. If the burning object is above ground (sky background, or however you decide something is effected by wind), the fire is influenced by the wind, causing it to burn hotter and consume more fuel, as well as drastically increasing the chance it will spread to nearby objects depending on how strong that wind is. Once the fuel is completely consumed, the fire goes out leaving the burnt out husk (or nothing, depending on the object).
You use a couple variables. One for the strength of the fire, one for the remaining fuel for the fire to burn, and a modifier based on the current wind-strength.
The idea is that larger objects and buildings have more fuel to burn. They can burn longer and bigger. If the burning object is above ground (sky background, or however you decide something is effected by wind), the fire is influenced by the wind, causing it to burn hotter and consume more fuel, as well as drastically increasing the chance it will spread to nearby objects depending on how strong that wind is. Once the fuel is completely consumed, the fire goes out leaving the burnt out husk (or nothing, depending on the object).
And what if a Clonk burns? The fire can hardly "consume" the Clonk as it consumes a wooden cabin
Then it consumes it's HP and when the Clonk is dead, the body burns slowly to ashes...
What AtomClonk said :P. Maybe our clonks need a "stop drop and roll" command? hehe.
edit: In addition I agree, there should be some type of flammable property that determines how easy it is for something to actually catch on fire.
edit: In addition I agree, there should be some type of flammable property that determines how easy it is for something to actually catch on fire.
And crush the bomb with your mind!
I think Clonks should just automatically put out any fire on them if they don't have anything else to do, that is they are standing still. That way, the player has one more choice to make: Running away to safety, or maybe water, or trying to put the fire out while the enemy is still close by. It might make sense to complicate that by introducing different fire which can only be put out by water, but that should be distinguishable by one look at the Clonk.
Well, if you want different fire strengths (or types) that could be put out in different ways you could also use the fire-bar approach described above. Fire below X% could be put out by hands (or it could just die down faster if you stand still, dunno). Fire above X% could only be put out by water. But I don't really like that idea as it sounds as if it would make stuff more complicated for the player :)
hmm the firepower is also needed to get a radius for incinerating other objects. Also how strong the are incinerated. Ex:
You get hit by a firearrow: Area of incineration of arrow is about 5 pixel, while the arrow makes 1+ firepower per pixel.
You get hit by a lavachunk: Area is about 20 pixel, while the firepower is 100% (lowering on distance).
You get hit by a firearrow: Area of incineration of arrow is about 5 pixel, while the arrow makes 1+ firepower per pixel.
You get hit by a lavachunk: Area is about 20 pixel, while the firepower is 100% (lowering on distance).
I don't think that is necessary. What benefits would that have compared to the current system?
It is simply more realistic. As example, wood could be incinerated in the near of something (very) hot, while in the current system, incineratons can only be achieved, if the object is in the incinerator. So Fire could "jump" from (wooden)building to (wooden)building. At least, it would make extinguishers more important. To safe a (wooden)town, you need to add some wizzardtower (Spell Extinguish) or some cannontower, that extinguish fire by shooting water on it.
![[se]](/mwf/flags/se.png "Sweden")
![[ca]](/mwf/flags/ca.png "Canada")
Wells could be an interesting building. Possibly like an elevator (maybe needs pre-dug well shaft), and sends a bucket down instead of an elevator cabin. Then you could detach the bucket for extinguishing.
I was more thinking about well as a structure you build that has no shaft. Then it has a slowly filling storage of water inside, that is affected by temperature and rain on the weather. That way, all players can have acces to water instead of those just lucky to start above some without having granite in the way.
![[ch]](/mwf/flags/ch.png "Switzerland")
I'd like that new fire-system. But as mentioned somewhere else in this thread, we should implement some sort of 'heat radius' where it's possible to catch fire too (depending on how easily it is to incinerate the object in the radius)
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
