Main > Gameplay
orignal flamethrower
Imagine:
--- Quote from: Gilder on June 21, 2013, 07:53:33 am ---
--- Quote from: Imagine on June 20, 2013, 11:58:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: MasX on June 20, 2013, 09:59:25 pm ---flamethower use to be a real threat we should bring tha back creating use for a gunner and new gameplay styles
--- End quote ---
That's uh... quite a lot of completely non-descriptive stuff bunched all into one....
However, on the topic of the flamethrowers, they're a pretty big threat currently since the changes in last patch. Having it go back to where it was where any fire at all would knock you off a gun would be pretty silly.
--- End quote ---
No they still aren't a threat. Only a threat to inexperienced crews with no chem spray prebuffing. Run them against a vet crew and you'll just be sitting there in front of their guns spewing flames while their engineers keep everything perma chem sprayed. You might get lucky with maybe 1 or 2 components damaged but until Chem is reverted, you can't do squat against it. Yeah that is so much better than it was before.../facepalm.
--- End quote ---
This is assuming, of course, that your engines have all the time in the world to run around doing nothing but chemming. Yes, a ship with nothing but flamers you'd do quite well against, however that's not the correct way to use it.
I will, however agree that heatsink ammo isn't quite worth much, but once again, that is a different topic.
--- Quote from: MasX on June 21, 2013, 06:32:58 am ---why would it be silly don't u think gat/flak is pretty silly don't u think mercs are pretty silly
--- End quote ---
I don't know why you're trying to compare all these things, this thread is about flamethrowers. However, since you bring it up, just because you would consider gat/flak or mercs to be silly, that doesn't mean that have any fire knock you out of the gunner seat not be even more so.
My point has been that reverting fire to work the way it once did is, well... preposterous.
Mr.Bando:
So...
-Revert the fire ignition chance % of flamers back to the way it was before it was nerfed
-Keep the 5 flame stack weapon disable.
I personally would reduce the chemspray protection time to around 4-5 seconds rather than the 11 seconds it currently has
Mr.Bando:
I wonder if anyone did some test using flamer with and without incendiary ammo.
Or aiming at particular gun rather than just randomly blanketing the enemy ship in flames to disable their guns
MasX:
--- Quote from: Imagine on June 21, 2013, 11:56:00 am ---
--- Quote from: Gilder on June 21, 2013, 07:53:33 am ---
--- Quote from: Imagine on June 20, 2013, 11:58:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: MasX on June 20, 2013, 09:59:25 pm ---flamethower use to be a real threat we should bring tha back creating use for a gunner and new gameplay styles
--- End quote ---
That's uh... quite a lot of completely non-descriptive stuff bunched all into one....
However, on the topic of the flamethrowers, they're a pretty big threat currently since the changes in last patch. Having it go back to where it was where any fire at all would knock you off a gun would be pretty silly.
--- End quote ---
No they still aren't a threat. Only a threat to inexperienced crews with no chem spray prebuffing. Run them against a vet crew and you'll just be sitting there in front of their guns spewing flames while their engineers keep everything perma chem sprayed. You might get lucky with maybe 1 or 2 components damaged but until Chem is reverted, you can't do squat against it. Yeah that is so much better than it was before.../facepalm.
--- End quote ---
This is assuming, of course, that your engines have all the time in the world to run around doing nothing but chemming. Yes, a ship with nothing but flamers you'd do quite well against, however that's not the correct way to use it.
I will, however agree that heatsink ammo isn't quite worth much, but once again, that is a different topic.
--- Quote from: MasX on June 21, 2013, 06:32:58 am ---why would it be silly don't u think gat/flak is pretty silly don't u think mercs are pretty silly
--- End quote ---
I don't know why you're trying to compare all these things, this thread is about flamethrowers. However, since you bring it up, just because you would consider gat/flak or mercs to be silly, that doesn't mean that have any fire knock you out of the gunner seat not be even more so.
My point has been that reverting fire to work the way it once did is, well... preposterous.
--- End quote ---
maybe so but it would through the current meta off its ass which is what we want right
']
NikolaiLev:
The sad part about the flamethrower adjustment was that it was balanced before. There were counters, and fire was an important consideration. After the nerf, flamethrowers were rendered utterly useless. The reason it was done was because fire was just too hot to handle for new players, and Muse actually cares about their entry level players.
The adjustment they made was a babystep in the right direction. They increased the damage fire deals from 3 to 4. But that's not enough. If fire can't kick gunners off guns that well, it needs to deal a lot more damage.
I think the first thing that should be done is giving it back some of its disabling capability. Bring the kick-off count to 6 or 5, from 8. Then, increase the damage fire does across the board. Though it's worth mentioning that fire already does a great job at destroying balloons, so it may be prudent to nerf its damage against balloons.
I like that with the flamethrower, you actually need to aim to kick someone off a gun with fire. That's cool. But it's just not effective enough. All it needs are number buffs.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version