1.3.6 Hotfix Flamethrower

[Spud Nick]

On a some what related note: The Flame thrower is hitting bullets in mid air! Not sure if they deal any damage to the bullets tho.

[AbbyTheRat]

I been pondering this over, I think part of the problem is that fire and chem spray both share the same cooldown together with repairs. Which I while reading this thread seem to be a common theme to everyone suggestion. It's hard to pick chem spray over fire ext because you have to pick which of the two you use.

Remove shared cooldown and lower immunity to 1 seconds (fire ext can't be used again on that part for 1-3 seconds), removes a high amount of stacks but not all stacks. Chem spray can still be used at the same time. It should be balanced so that if you hit full stacks on a part, you can't remove all stacks with chem spray + fire ext but at least you can reduce the stacks to a management level that next fire ext cycle and possible chem spray cycle, you can remove it all. This means you could have a "firefighter engineer" build now. At the cost of being able to repair they could deal with fire easily enough.

I actually have to go now, I'll come back to either post more details or edit this post depending. BRB

[HamsterIV]

just have heat sink loaded up prior to and laugh at the incoming flames...

That is still more of a preparation thing. I look at a heatsink'ed gun as one less thing that I need to chem spray. Until there is a viable strategy for getting a ship out from under flamethrower lock dealing with flamethrowers is going to be a misery.

[Captain Smollett]

I haven't been playing much goi lately however I've been following this thread and have arguably a very deep understanding of this game.

Basdc on all of the arguments being made has anyone considered lowering the % rate fire stacks and the stacks to kick people off of guns?

How about 33% less stacks per second, 6 stacks to get kicked off of a gun.

[-Mad Maverick-]

I am opposed more because I think messing with things is trickier than anyone thinks at the onset.  so because the fire feels like it's in a good spot I don't really wanna mess with it.   

[-Mad Maverick-]

just have heat sink loaded up prior to and laugh at the incoming flames...

That is still more of a preparation thing. I look at a heatsink'ed gun as one less thing that I need to chem spray. Until there is a viable strategy for getting a ship out from under flamethrower lock dealing with flamethrowers is going to be a misery.

again if a pyra with gat mortar jumps you from a blind spot you don't have too much hope (unless they aren't very good) either.  close range weapons should feel that way at close range;  like a shot gun to the chest at point blank,  your fault for letting them get that close.  and in the case of flamers you could just take the smallest bit of preparation  and render it useless

[Spud Nick]

The flamer is fine were it is. Go have fun burning things or die trying.

[Wundsalz]

After having flown with more flamer builds (in the live version, not dev app) my following impression has been solidified:
- the flamers disable powers are in balance.
- the flamers damage to hull and balloon is in balance.
- the flamers damage to the permanent hull is too high.

I still think a reduction of the flame damage to the perma-hull would be the right step to make (along the line with a hades buff to compensate for the change). If that's not possible changing the flamers damage type to flechette, piercing or a combination of both might be an alternative.

[B'Elanna]

._. maybe a biiiiiit more fire? i can chem-spray a spire and mobula on my own... this is silly!
those are obviously the ships i should have the most trouble on keeping from burning.
just a teeeenzy bit more damage. so small <3
if we make chem spray too solid no one's using the extinguisher anymore.

it either needs more damage to make chem-spraying interfere with my repairs
or chem-spray needs a 2-5second nerf. :s

don't you wanna burn .-.

come on..

.poke.

[Squidslinger Gilder]

just have heat sink loaded up prior to and laugh at the incoming flames...

That is still more of a preparation thing. I look at a heatsink'ed gun as one less thing that I need to chem spray. Until there is a viable strategy for getting a ship out from under flamethrower lock dealing with flamethrowers is going to be a misery.

again if a pyra with gat mortar jumps you from a blind spot you don't have too much hope (unless they aren't very good) either.  close range weapons should feel that way at close range;  like a shot gun to the chest at point blank,  your fault for letting them get that close.  and in the case of flamers you could just take the smallest bit of preparation  and render it useless

Thank you! Exactly what I've been saying.

People need to stop QQing and start piloting again! The heck is a matter with all of you? Gotten so used to flying turds around as engineer pilots that you've forgotten how to be a pilot?

Want to beat out a flamer, out pilot it! Mix some chem into that to help but use your heads! Maatakumou!!

[Spud Nick]

Lets keep the flaming to a minimum... I mean burn them all to the ground but be nice to each other on the forums.

[Sammy B. T.]

Clearly I lack the ability to maneuver a ship around. Y'all caught me. I just sit on a side of the map and wait for the enemy to come at me. My ship is a flying turd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CvoIiJ9bBU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl7Wy2ZPboo


As I've said many times however, lowering the ROF and Ammo for the flamer doesn't really impair the gun to force people to mind fire stacks. Since damage per stack of fire is loaded towards the initial stack and each additional stack doesn't do terribly much of an increase, additional fire stacks mainly just represent ability to put out fires, not so much actual damage. You don't need to be able to go from 0 to 20 in just a few shot seconds to be able to effectively use the flamer, to be calling people to repairs and causing an engineer problem that can't be ignored. This was true before the patch.

The flamer will always suck alone just as it should. Giving it ridiculous stacks is just a dumb balance. If you want a bufffed flamer increase the amount of time a ship is under flamer. Its why burst flamer rocks, not because of the AOE but the lower ROF

[-Mad Maverick-]

I was wondering... what if we just lowered the maximum allowed stacks? like instead of 20 it was 15

[B'Elanna]

so it's even easier to get around with chem?

no. you burn and you burn a lot.

[Sammy B. T.]

If you don't do anything to prevent a ship from cheming then your flamer should fail spectacularly.