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]

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.

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.

Basically like any other weapon out there? Many of which don't have a pathetic range and no direct counter like a chem spray?

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.

[-Muse- Cullen]

There is literally no situation where I would rather have a flamethrower over any other weapon when thinking a loadout for my ship.

Personal preference. On my squid, I swear by putting it in the front slot because it guarantees busy engineers. Once they're busy, you gotta give 'em hell with burst mortar rounds, or even gat.

[Chrinus]

Following up on Cullen's post...

Incendiary Flamethrower
45% ignite chance
30% reduced fire rate.. 13*0.7=9.1 rounded 9/sec (According to the wiki, 800/min=13.3 rounded 13)
FireRate*Ignite=4.05 stacks/sec on average

-30% clip size.. 300*0.7=210
ClipSize/FireRate=23.3 rounded 23 seconds

23 seconds of fire @ 4.05 stacks per second gives you 93 stacks of fire on average per clip


Greased Flamethrower
20% ignite chance
60% increased fire rate.. 13*1.6=20.8 rounded 21/sec
FireRate*Ignite=4.2 stacks/sec on average

+20% Clip Size.. 300*1.2=360
ClipSize/FireRate=17.14 rounded 17 seconds

17 seconds of fire @ 4.2 stacks per second gives you 71 stacks of fire on average per clip

Conclusion: They're both very close. This battle really will come down to how long you can keep the gun on target where greased would start to creep up since it has that tiny 0.15/sec stack edge to overcome incendiary's stacks by a very short sum.

[Serenum]

By this logic mallet and spanner are counters to flamers too...
Also, mallet doesn't make the component you hit impervious to damage for 15 seconds.

Anyway, of course it's personal preference, everyone is free to use wathever they want, even a ship loaded with nothing but harpoons and flares. But I do think that it's a fact that the flamer is underperforming.

[Surette]

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.

Can confirm, Zill was spectating me flying my squid with a front flamethrower loaded with incendiary ammo. After every match, the enemy team was just like "Surette, I hate you." You'll make their engineers miserable with 20 stacks of fire on nearly every component. Sure it's not a gat/flak replacement for your pyramidion (though Sunderland might disagree after playing him with a double flame pyra  ), but on something like a squid where you're meant to be a harass/support ship anyway, it's pretty damn powerful.

[Plasmarobo]

By this logic mallet and spanner are counters to flamers too...
Also, mallet doesn't make the component you hit impervious to damage for 15 seconds.

You misunderstand my argument. Allow me to elaborate!

I'm not talking about components that are destroyed. That is our ideal endpoint in this scenario. We want as many things broken as possible.

The mallet and spanner rebuild damage, so they counter standard damage. Insofar as the flamer does standard damage, yeah, it is a direct counter. However, they cause repair cool down and most importantly do not put out flames. Those flames will continue to damage your components. Until they break, or someone puts them out.

I would be very impressed if you could maintain a Chemspray on the hull, balloon, and important guns while repairing.
Anyone who is competent with flamethrower will see the blue sheen and target the non-impervious components. Yay massive fire stacks on everything!
You can imagine a Hullbuff as mitigating general damage, but fire does continual damage until dealt with.
I think you keep imagining the flamer as a DPS weapon. But I don't think it's supposed to be.

In my mind it's similar to a burst-rocket weapon, it breaks stuff. It's purpose is not to kill. So it shouldn't be taking down armor or components even. It should be either: pulling engineers away from their posts -or- breaking their toys.
Now, if you want to talk about flame stacks kicking gunners off their guns sooner... well, everyone seems to support that. So yeah, I suppose it is still under performing.

But flames + massive damage = unfair to engineers.
(I also think that you should not be able to extinguish while the hull is on cooldown, but I think that'd be a bit unfair too...)

[Imagine]

Keep in mind here that while yes, theoretically chemspray is a direct counter to flames, if you're getting flamed and you mistime any of your spray re-applies, you're in a world of hurt because the chemspray is utter poop at putting out stacks. And yeah, most engineers will be jumping between hull and balloon but that leaves you really no better off than if like a hwacha barrage just knocked your engines/guns out.

Look, are we going to see flamers in competitive play right now? No, obviously not really as sniping and gat/flak is still a much more powerful combination. However, I feel that in just regular games flamers are better than what people give it credit for, especially in the hands of a pilot who is good in positioning.

[N-Sunderland]

I can confirm that my double flame Pyra yesterday was more effective than expected. With lesmok (not greased or incendiary, but it would have been even better with those up close) I was able to pin, completely disable, and nearly kill Surette's Galleon without any assistance from my teammate (flamers disabled guns, killed balloon, and then stripped armour while I teabagged their balloon). I would have finished him off if it weren't for the Pyramidion respawning and coming back (which had only died because I had utterly wrecked it with flamers). It's actually a really good close-range disabler.

[Zenark]

The thing about the flamer, no matter the stats, equipment, whatever... It's just not wise to stay under a constant stream of fire. It may be only an annoyance to some people, but that annoyance can easily become a problem.

I see the flamer on some ships as more of a "stay away from me" weapon, since it's unwise to stay close enough to be set on fire constantly.

[Sammy B. T.]

Is one shot one particle?

[RearAdmiralZill]

Is one shot one particle?

Yes.