1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes

[awkm]

It got fixed because it's behavior was unpredictable, even not allowing you to hit components at point black (frame/hit box skipping).  We can't go back to the way it was.  It was flat out broken.

So yes, I can reduce its direct damage and even reduces it % ignition.

What about any of the other suggestions?  Range?  Multipliers?

[Sammy B. T.]

If it was so broken, then why was it so commonly and effectively used in and out of competitive?

As per other things, love of god no. It was balanced before, why do we have to "fix" everything all the time?

[Byron Cavendish]

I honestly never noticed issues with my carronade/flamer teabagging squid pre-patch. If it was missing particles, why not fix that, the buffing is irrelevant to fixing bugs.

[awkm]

Even if you had a component lined up at point blank, the flamethrower would not reliable hit it due to the way its hit detection worked.  This is just a reproduction case, theoretically this could be happening at any number of ranges if the distances were lined up with when and where skipping would occur.

The goal is to make everything predictable and work the way you would expect.  The flamethrower's previous behavior was not predictable in the way that we wanted.  This is what we fixed.

You're right, we don't have to fix anything and leave everything bugged until people complain about it too much. 

But this isn't the discussion.  The discussion is what changes you'd like to see the flamethrower.

Also, it was never the intention to buff the flamethrower.  Fixing it was an implicit buff since all particles are hitting now.  The damages and % ignitions were all nerfed to try to compensate.  However, it seems that the nerfs were not enough based on current feedback despite the testing and compliance with its last update.

So, yeah.  I can nerf it more if that's the consensus.  No big deal.

[Nidh]

err... I don't remember a flamer being used in competitive for a looong time... Anywho, I will say that it's a great disabling weapon now, but it can also kill, which was my problem with the heavy carronade a while ago. Taking away the direct damage and leaving the ignition chance might be fine, or pehaps lower the ignition chance to 20% (because it's an even number ^_^), since it will only be able to kill if the engies miss a chemspray on the balloon.

If the direct damage is taken away, I can see double flamer pyras as a perfect "stall" ship that could make a flakfish ally viable.

I have one concern however: I'm afraid flamers might-out class the hwacha since the hwacha requires you to be very close to disable a whole ship, almost within flamer range.

[awkm]

So far I'm hearing range nerf as well as damage nerf.

[redria]

I typed up a rant but Awkm summed it up. The gun is now consistent, and can be tuned to balance (almost) exactly the same as it was in previous production, with the added knowledge that now you can rely on every particle behaving as expected. The gun was nerfed directly in damage and fire-spread-rate: the buff was indirect due to fixing the problem. That indicates pretty clearly how severe of a problem it previously was if the fix + a nerf leaves it the most OP gun in the game. Let's find a nerf that takes it back to something comparable to the old flamethrower.

However, I would argue against a range nerf. As it was I used lesmok just to stay effective against everyone who was trying to stay away. Nerf it more and lesmok will be the only viable option (IMO).
I don't remember the flamethrower in competitive (other than myself) except as a side or extra weapon or on a Cake ship.

Personally I would just nerf damage back down severely and drop the ignition percentage. Try to get the damage rate and ignition rate to something approximating what it was previously. A range nerf would make it even less viable in competitive.

[Nidh]

A range nerf might help, although i didn't consider that chemspray and heatsink would counter it fairly effectively. Perhaps it would be fine with only the damage nerf, as the heatsnk and chem are "loadout zoners" anyway.

[Imagine]

I told ya people were going to go bonkers back when I visited, Awkm

Anyways, I haven't had a chance to try it out yet in live, but hopefully we'll be able to settle on a happy medium.

[Schwerbelastung]

I don't think a range nerf is necessarily required. I would be happy with a further damage/fire stack nerf, so that you could still use it to effectively knock out non-chemsprayed guns, and even kill the enemy if you shot at them long enough. Maybe reduce the damage more than the chance of applying fire?

I personally would like to see the flamer in a place where I want to use it as a 3rd "backup" close range weapon on a Pyramidion or a Goldfish. A skilled pilot could effectively use it in a trifecta on a pyra, hopefully without being too overpowered. I would like to see it as a utility, not a brute force gun. And by a "brute force" gun I'm referring to a gun like the Hades, which is a very good all-around gun.. as long as you've got a decent gunner and are able to maintain range.

[Byron Cavendish]

I guess it's time to nerf the Artemis flamer again!  ONLY DISABLE!

Solution?

[Wundsalz]

So far I'm hearing range nerf as well as damage nerf.

Ignition chance/time reduction! Personally I think the direct dmg of the flamer to be okay. On a chem-sprayed ship it still inflicts noticeable damage but way less than the guns it competes with (carronade, gat) - that's fine. It's the quick spread of fire stacks which turns chem-spray errors into almost inescapable lock-downs.

Also you might want to reconsider the multiple-hit characteristic of the flamer. That's a unique and quite powerful perk. Right now one can aim for weapons to knock off gunners their weapons and deal damage to the hull/balloon at the same time with the same projectiles. I see no reason why to keep it this way , "it has been that way before" put aside.

If it was so broken, then why was it so commonly and effectively used in [...] competitive?

O_o did I miss something?

[-Mad Maverick-]

I love everything about the current flamer except for the ability to damage.   make it solely a disabler and it will be awesome!  I was playing with geo earlier and explaining to him how it felt a lot like the beta flamer because the fires were catching way more consistently will bring back the heat sink thus making the gunner a viable class again!! I am really happy about the future of the flamer all we need to do is take away almost all of the dps and make it simply start fires REALLY well... also bring the range in a tad so that escapes are possible and that lesmock vs heatsink is actually a trade off worth thinking about...

[awkm]

At the end of the day, before I go home, I'll put some changes into Dev App for people to test.

[Wundsalz]

I was playing with geo earlier and explaining to him how it felt a lot like the beta flamer because the fires were catching way more consistently will bring back the heat sink thus making the gunner a viable class again!!

Why would I prefer a gunner with heatsink over an engineer with dps-optimizing ammo and chem spray, especially when considering heatsink doesn't prevent fires during reloads?