Main > Gameplay
orignal flamethrower
RearAdmiralZill:
I haven't watched someone with greased in spectator. I do remember watching a 20 stack accumulate on the hull of a ship in seconds with someone using incendiary.
I swear it says 20% somewhere.....but that is indeed my mistake. Good thing it's better, lol.
Serenum:
--- Quote from: RearAdmiralZill on June 24, 2013, 09:49:04 am ---
--- Quote from: Serenum on June 24, 2013, 09:33:38 am ---
--- Quote from: RearAdmiralZill on June 24, 2013, 08:14:39 am ---I would like to invite all of your to use incendiary on the flamethrower and watch the results. Even spectate with a buddy using it to see just how fast it'll put stacks on things.
40% combined ignite chance per particle. Yea.
--- End quote ---
Then you meet a ship with a competent engineer and chemical spray and the fun stops...
--- End quote ---
True, though they wont be chem-spraying every component, and then you load in something that increases the dps rather than relying on stacks of fire. Most of the time, engineers will neglect the guns/engines to save the balloon and hull first. Sure they might be alive, but they aren't doing anything to hurt you or your teammate, and anything caught will be much harder for that chem-spraying engie to put out.
My point is, the flamethrower works when used properly.
To Echo's point, it's not a great main gun. Then again, not all guns are, and using them as such will only surprise opponents for so long. I don't think that was the point though, unless I missed something in the thread.
--- End quote ---
So you are saying that you will be doing "some" damage to the ship components.
Basically like any other weapon out there? Many of which don't have a pathetic range and no direct counter like a chem spray?
I like the concept of the flamethrower, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's fine like it is now. In my opinion a flamethrower should be closer to what a carronade is: if you get to close you are boned. Instead right now it's: if you get too close you are slightly inconvenienced.
I would be in favor of a complete redesign of how fire works in this game. I think it needs it's niche, maybe it could be particularly effective against weapons, making them unable to fire right away instead of after a while, or destroying the weapon if it's fired when on fire (I apologize for the overuse of the word "fire" in this post).
With so many counters and so many drawbacks, first of all its range, the flamethrower and fire in general should be a real threat.
RearAdmiralZill:
Well I do still think the stacks required to disable a gun should be lowered. If you do catch a hull/balloon with no chem on it, the dps of a decent sized stack will surprise you.
What are you trying to compare this to, because you seem to believe that no matter what, there is another gun out there doing exactly what a flamethrower can achieve, only better.
Serenum:
Basically, yes.
Staying in the realm of light weapons:
-If i want to destroy the armor quickly there's the gatling.
-If I want to disable key components with precision there's the Artemis or the Mercury.
-If I want to quickly bring down the baloon there's the carronade, that for all it's drawbacks it's still incredibily effective if used on a manouverable ship.
-If I want to seriously screw with my enemy there's the harpoon. And the enemy won't be able to aim or move how he wants ever again.
-If I just want to harass and finish off already damaged ships there's the carousel, my personal favourite weapon in the entire game.
-And of course against hull there's the flak and the mortar.
If we bring in heavy weapons (or "medium" weapons, however you want to call them) then it gets even worse. Hawacha with explosive rounds at close range is orders of magnitude better then even double flamethrower, the heavy carronade is a beast, the lumberjack is an "I win" button against close range vessels if your ally and gunner is competent.
There is literally no situation where I would rather have a flamethrower over any other weapon when thinking a loadout for my ship.
Plasmarobo:
So I experienced this with Sunderland's dual-flamer build last night.
Chemspray can only do so much. I was sprinting back and forth, keeping the Hull and Balloon impervious while trying to repair stuff.
It. Was. Not. A. Fun. Time.
I missed one (1) spray on the hull (repairing the balloon) and instant 20 stack. Armor dispersed right quick since Chemspray is terrible at actually fighting fire.
With the guns on fire.
And engines.
And Balloon.
If anyone had been doing actual damage to us, we'd of bit it.
However noone was (thankfully) except for Sundy trying to ram. Ships are slower than bullets is all I have to say to that.
Point being, even a Hawacha or Carronade fish doesn't have much killing power. They are support ships, just like a fire-ship. In a game about teamwork, the flamer is a great panic weapon (never underestimate the chaotic might of panic) which will draw the engineers either away from important parts, or knock the guns down for a bit.
Every weapon has a tactical application. Some require you to be more... creative with your positioning.
--- Quote from: Serenum on June 24, 2013, 10:03:26 am ---Basically like any other weapon out there? Many of which don't have a pathetic range and no direct counter like a chem spray?
--- End quote ---
The mallet and spanner disagree with this statement.
Hull buffs also disagree with this statement.
Fire is super aggravating as an engineer. It makes me work 150% harder.
It's not nearly as easy to apply as a Hawacha, but sweeping a flamer over a ship is super effective.
Granted, if you're letting the enemy get close enough to flame, you a probably doing it wrong, but that's just one school of thought. Lumberjacks and other heavy weapons are easy enough to snipe and take super long to rebuild. But yeah, the flamer probably doesn't have the raw DPS or DPC of those weapons. It's not really designed to though, is it?
If you don't like the flamer, don't use it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version