Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: MasX on June 20, 2013, 10:08:12 am
-
I think the orignal flamethrower would help balance the game better, give squid a Lil more power give gunners a place and would help break up the meta alil bit ......what so guys think for those who remember.
-
What was different? 1 flame gun lockdowns?
-
That's more of a thing with fire all together isn't it though? Going back to kicking people out of guns with even one stack of fire?
-
Fire just got a buff and it's been working out pretty well so far I think. Flamethrowers are viable weapons again.
-
Fun fact: because of a typo, the thread's title says "orignal". That's the French word for moose.
-
Fun fact: because of a typo, the thread's title says "orignal". That's the French word for moose.
The more you know!
-
Fun fact: because of a typo, the thread's title says "orignal". That's the French word for moose.
I'd love a flamethrower moose.
-
Fire just got a buff and it's been working out pretty well so far I think. Flamethrowers are viable weapons again.
I would argue that incendiary ammo on a mortar does a better job than a flamer, but eh..
I still don't see them as 'viable', more like annoying.
-
Fire just got a buff and it's been working out pretty well so far I think. Flamethrowers are viable weapons again.
I would argue that incendiary ammo on a mortar does a better job than a flamer, but eh..
I still don't see them as 'viable', more like annoying.
That's what it was way back then.
Way back when you needed a gunner with heatsink ammo because anything igniting your gun booted you off. Anything from banshees, flamethrowers...or a well placed flack shot.
I still think the flame stack to boot off gun should be lowered a bit...the only way to really stack that much onto a gun is if you're using burst or greased rounds...
-
Fun fact: because of a typo, the thread's title says "orignal". That's the French word for moose.
I'd love a flamethrower moose.
^
What do you mean about the flamethrower, MasX?
-
Think hes talking about how it would instant knock guns offline. It was a great disabling weapon and required engineers and pilots to be on their toes. I've actually advocated this ever since the patch hit which changed it to it's current form. Turned flames from useful to pointless/mere annoyance. Then made it worse by buffing chem spray so much that it belittled flame use even more. Chem spray in it's current form makes more sense if flames are in their former form since then it would have more of a reason for existing and flamer ships would still need to bring some other weapon besides flames.
-
I do believe he's talking about the flame stacks necessary to kick someone from their gun be reduced so that the flamethrower functions more like it used too.
That and maybe change the damage matrix since the flamer used to be able to kill guns and engines pretty darn well if fire was left unchecked and burning.
-
Fun fact: because of a typo, the thread's title says "orignal". That's the French word for moose.
good with typo arent I
-
Fun fact: because of a typo, the thread's title says "orignal". That's the French word for moose.
I'd love a flamethrower moose.
^
What do you mean about the flamethrower, MasX?
flamethower use to be a real threat we should bring tha back creating use for a gunner and new gameplay styles
-
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.
-
why would it be silly don't u think gat/flak is pretty silly don't u think mercs are pretty silly
-
Mercs are silly? Are we playing the same game here?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
']
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :P), but on something like a squid where you're meant to be a harass/support ship anyway, it's pretty damn powerful.
-
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...)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Is one shot one particle?
-
Is one shot one particle?
Yes.
-
...Flame Junkers vs Metamydions anyone?
-
...Flame Junkers vs Metamydions anyone?
Cullen, It's time to break out the Birthday Cake.
Not only is fire the only damage type to be over 1x effective on more than a single ship system (besides ramming), it's pretty empowering.
Ask anyone who's crewed on my double-flamer/incendiary manticore Goldie. If we manage to lock down a ship and just set everything ablaze, I turn into something like the 21 second mark in this: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VYxh0wCrVYk#t=21s). Mild language.
Competitive? Maybe not (no, really, I have no idea, never played competitively). A nice switch from the meta? Most certainly.
-
...Flame Junkers vs Metamydions anyone?
Cullen, It's time to break out the Birthday Cake.
http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/10804518/2/stock-illustration-10804518-birthday-cake-on-fire.jpg
Banshee front, two banshee right, gat/flak left. For the most part, we only use the right side trifecta of banshees... Fireworks galore... The enemy ship can't do anything about it. I think we might as well change the gat flak side to mercs or flamers.
-
...Flame Junkers vs Metamydions anyone?
Competitive? Maybe not (no, really, I have no idea, never played competitively). A nice switch from the meta? Most certainly.
You can't do it in competitive play because allies are capable and will assist. Having your ship exposed trying to kill a flamed enemy will only get you focused down. Cannot risk that against gat/flaks. In pub play you can sit there forever burning someone to death and their ally won't give a crap.
-
You can't do it in competitive play because allies are capable and will assist. Having your ship exposed trying to kill a flamed enemy will only get you focused down. Cannot risk that against gat/flaks. In pub play you can sit there forever burning someone to death and their ally won't give a crap.
I know this will never happen, but this just gave me the image of three Squids rising up from the mist on Canyon Ambush, intercepting a formation of enemies, locking down all three simultaneously, and winning a match.
Once again, not a viable tactic, but fun to envision.
-
You can't do it in competitive play because allies are capable and will assist. Having your ship exposed trying to kill a flamed enemy will only get you focused down. Cannot risk that against gat/flaks. In pub play you can sit there forever burning someone to death and their ally won't give a crap.
I know this will never happen, but this just gave me the image of three Squids rising up from the mist on Canyon Ambush, intercepting a formation of enemies, locking down all three simultaneously, and winning a match.
Once again, not a viable tactic, but fun to envision.
One day I will put togheter 3 squids on the same team and win the game with the power of confusion.
Mark my word.
-
One day I will put togheter 3 squids on the same team and win the game with the power of confusion.
Mark my word.
Sign me up.
-
I laugh at todays flamethrower
-
I laugh at todays flamethrower
I join.
-
i forgot who it was but somebody on my crew was like let 1 engine burn it makes good ground effects
-
I laugh at todays flamethrower
I want to try flying against you with my flame squid.
-
That flame Squid man.
My solution is just to not let you get close.