orignal flamethrower

[MasX]

why would it be silly   don't u think gat/flak is pretty silly  don't u think mercs are pretty silly

[N-Sunderland]

Mercs are silly? Are we playing the same game here?

[Squidslinger Gilder]

flamethower use to be a real threat  we should bring tha back  creating use for a gunner and new gameplay styles

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.

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.

Heatsink rounds had a reason for being added to the game. It was to combat flame throwers which would instant knock the guns out. Right now they are pointless. But before the massive nerf it was common to see heatsink rounds being used. It was so common that gunners had a reason for existing because they'd be keeping guns active and firing under heatsink. But now we've got 90% heavy clip usage which means gunners aren't needed unless flying a ship with medium guns. But even then they aren't really needed.

[RearAdmiralZill]

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.

You do realize that chem spray only works against the stacks right? It still does damage as you hit them like any gun, which is best against the balloon, then armor, then components (not sure about bare hull). You just word this like it does zero damage against chem sprayed components.

Heatsink rounds had a reason for being added to the game. It was to combat flame throwers which would instant knock the guns out. Right now they are pointless. But before the massive nerf it was common to see heatsink rounds being used. It was so common that gunners had a reason for existing because they'd be keeping guns active and firing under heatsink. But now we've got 90% heavy clip usage which means gunners aren't needed unless flying a ship with medium guns. But even then they aren't really needed.

I can agree that heatsink is not as useful right now for its main task, which is fire prevention. Currently, I only want heatsink for the drop it gives for arming times, so it has become pretty obsolete after fire got changed.

While not going back to one stack knocking people off guns, I think 5-6 stacks would be a good start to get a happy medium for flame lovers.

[Chrinus]

The weapon certainly needs some help. Not enough payoff for getting so close to your opponent, though the recent change was in the right direction. Reducing the stacks to overheat a gun would most likely give this weapon a use in play besides being annoying.

[Imagine]

flamethower use to be a real threat  we should bring tha back  creating use for a gunner and new gameplay styles

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.

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.

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.

why would it be silly   don't u think gat/flak is pretty silly  don't u think mercs are pretty silly

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]

flamethower use to be a real threat  we should bring tha back  creating use for a gunner and new gameplay styles

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.

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.

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.

why would it be silly   don't u think gat/flak is pretty silly  don't u think mercs are pretty silly

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.

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.

[RearAdmiralZill]

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.

[Echoez]

Personaly, I don't see why would you want a flamer ship over a second gat/flak with much more killing power or a Double Merc that can both destroy armor and disable effectively at long range.

Basically the flamer is that 'meh' kind of secondary weapon which you might never actually need to use at the moment and would only put it in a weapon slow that you don't realy care about.

[Serenum]

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.

Then you meet a ship with a competent engineer and chemical spray and the fun stops...

[RearAdmiralZill]

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.

Then you meet a ship with a competent engineer and chemical spray and the fun stops...

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.

[-Muse- Cullen]

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.

- Incendiary Rounds modifiers changed to +25% chance of fire
- Dragon Tongue Light Flamethrower: increased chance to add fire charge to 20% per particle

45% ignition chance...
Which is better- having the higher ignition chance, but less ammo and rate of fire... or more particles per second with greased?