41 replies to this topic

[VYCanis]

Flamers in MW games have normally been represented as looking akin to your average liquid fuel based modern flamethrower when fired. With bright orange gasoline fire looking flames.

However, according to the fluffy tech descriptions they are more akin to big damn plasma torches.

so what if instead of looking like this

http://t3.gstatic.co...n-a7ffSdMc42ZbA

http://www.greatdrea...lamethrower.jpg


they look more like a longer range, bigger version of this

http://grieg.gotdns....lasma_torch.jpg

http://www.planert-j...h%20tip%202.jpg

Though if you wanted to mount fuel based "vehicle" flamers, they should naturally look like the former.

thoughts?

[UncleKulikov]

I would like the second set. It would be visually interesting, and different.

Though in Tabletop, they can be used to either damage or to increase the target's heat level. If both options are allowed, the fuel flame thrower should be used to indicate the overheat mode, while the blowtorch would be used for the damaging mode.

[Strayed]

Should look as awesome as this

[Orzorn]

Strayed, on 04 December 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

Should look as awesome as this

*Furries not included.

[CaveMan]

Flamers need to generate a lot more heat than they have in the past. If you're standing there getting roasted by 2 or 3 flamers at once it should have you on the verge of shutdown. (And rightly so, they have pitiful range.) Under the boardgame rules, they cause more heat to the USER than they do to the TARGET! Absurd!

Given the choice between a flamer and a medium laser, you're going to pick the medium laser every single time, unless the flamer gets a serious overhaul.

[cipher]

CaveMan, on 04 December 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

Given the choice between a flamer and a medium laser, you're going to pick the medium laser every single time, unless the flamer gets a serious overhaul.

QFT.

Damage and higher efficiency or damage/heat build-up per ton/crit space is always preferred in Battletech.

Only if you wanted to use the optional fire & smoke rules would flamers be useful. And even then you'd only want one or two. Worse, not every terrain type is flammable.

Simply put, Mechwarrior and Battletech rules are not kind to flamers.

[UncleKulikov]

Flamers should definitely be better. Like causing no heat for the firing mech, since they actually vent plasma from the reactor

Edited by UncleKulikov, 04 December 2011 - 12:09 PM.

[CaveMan]

UncleKulikov, on 04 December 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

Flamers should definitely be better. Like causing no heat for the firing mech, since they actually vent plasma from the reactor

Flamers with no heat would let you cram like 10 of them on a light 'Mech and heatblast people until they explode, with no consequences to you. Not sure I like that.

I think the flamer producing 3 heat is fine (jumpjets vent heat from the reactor and they still heat you up) but it should be applying like....6 heat to the target per flamer (without limits on how much heat could be added).

[cipher]

CaveMan, on 04 December 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

Flamers with no heat would let you cram like 10 of them on a light 'Mech and heatblast people until they explode, with no consequences to you. Not sure I like that.

They're still a 1/2/3 range weapon, so loading up 10 of them on a light mech is still worthless, even if they didn't cause heat for the mech firing them.

I'd like to see them cause 6 heat to the target mech but no damage, and no heat for the mech firing them. That would make them worthwhile to equip one or two on any mech for close combat. But having a huge number of them on a mech doesn't do any good since other mechs will keep their distance and pick you off at range.

[Moppelkotze]

cipher, on 05 December 2011 - 08:21 AM, said:

They're still a 1/2/3 range weapon, so loading up 10 of them on a light mech is still worthless, even if they didn't cause heat for the mech firing them.

I'd like to see them cause 6 heat to the target mech but no damage, and no heat for the mech firing them. That would make them worthwhile to equip one or two on any mech for close combat. But having a huge number of them on a mech doesn't do any good since other mechs will keep their distance and pick you off at range.

As there will be no cover, no hills, no buildings, no way to sneak to the enemy...

[CaveMan]

cipher, on 05 December 2011 - 08:21 AM, said:

They're still a 1/2/3 range weapon, so loading up 10 of them on a light mech is still worthless, even if they didn't cause heat for the mech firing them.

I'd like to see them cause 6 heat to the target mech but no damage, and no heat for the mech firing them. That would make them worthwhile to equip one or two on any mech for close combat. But having a huge number of them on a mech doesn't do any good since other mechs will keep their distance and pick you off at range.

Uh yeah, good luck keeping your distance when I'm 8/12 and you're 4/6 or 5/8. I can be on top of you long before you have time to disable me. I only have to get within 90 meters and then I can heatbomb you to shutdown twice over and keep baking you until the glass in your cockpit melts. No-heat flamers would be brooooooken.

[VYCanis]

flamers should of course run hot, you are not only venting plasma from your reactor through your mech to the weapon, but the fact that you are siphoning off energy forces your reactor to work harder, i.e. why energy weapons run so damn hot.

HOWEVER

vehicle flamers should run a lot cooler by comparison, since they are simply using fuel. tons of EXPLOSIVE HIGHLY FLAMMABLE fuel.

[canned wolf]

I have a hard time with the whole venting plasma concept. It just seems like opening up the reactor and spraying plasma out of it would be a bad idea. Bathing a target in napalm on the other hand seems entirely doable. I would just make flamers carry fuel, be at risk for ammo explosions (allot like inferno srms) and do heat over time with no damage unless armor has been penetrated. Hit them with a flamer and for 10 or 15 seconds they burn. Which means they have to deal with a few extra points of heat for a while. Smoke should also make visual and thermal aiming really hard depending on where they get hit.

Mechs who take criticals in areas where fuel is stored should not only risk explosion, but ongoing fire which continues to cause internal damage until extinguished.

[Yeach]

Fluff says both Flamers and Machine guns are anti-infantry weapons.

Therefore they should do wide arc area damage (also another reason why you don't usually need more than one flamer).
That would make hitting infantry easier and give them the purpose.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Alternatively they should affect multiple mech's if they are close together, depends how they deal with heat. It could also reduce/break targeting locks temporarily for mechs in line with the arc? They could at least be useful, which is more than I can say for MG's with nothing other than mech's in the game. I would prefer to see them dropped, even if it's just for more armour or another ML etc.

[VYCanis]

using flamers to easily set fire to buildings and trees to create false positives on sensors (only out of LOS, if your mech can visually see the fire it should disregard it as a contact)

"oh god you guys there are like 15 dudes down that way!!!!"

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Which is why you need decent scouts

[Strayed]

Orzorn, on 04 December 2011 - 10:22 AM, said:

*Furries not included.

Furries included here


More a weapon for intimidation in my opinion and massacring infantry.

[Corsair114]

Flamer's worked nicely in MW3, allowing you to load up a Scat or Strider with them, then overheat the target o badly they exploded on each trigger pull.

Inferno Rockets are similar in Mercs MP3.1, they let you easily shutdown 'mechs, especially mediums and lights, in about three seconds, letting you take them apart and leave them for dead. Even assault 'mechs are easy to shutdown, or force a heat suicide on.

If anything, it seems Flamers should be tipping point weapons, giving heat equally to both parties. This would have the side-effect of punishing hot running 'mechs, by pushing them over the tipping point into an overheat.

Put me down as completely against any weapon that lets you walk up to a target and *****-nilly shut it down.

[Yeach]

Corsair114, on 08 December 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

Flamer's worked nicely in MW3, allowing you to load up a Scat or Strider with them, then overheat the target o badly they exploded on each trigger pull.

Inferno Rockets are similar in Mercs MP3.1, they let you easily shutdown 'mechs, especially mediums and lights, in about three seconds, letting you take them apart and leave them for dead. Even assault 'mechs are easy to shutdown, or force a heat suicide on.

If anything, it seems Flamers should be tipping point weapons, giving heat equally to both parties. This would have the side-effect of punishing hot running 'mechs, by pushing them over the tipping point into an overheat.

Put me down as completely against any weapon that lets you walk up to a target and *****-nilly shut it down.

Um... they were highly exploited in MW3 multiplayer where you blew up an opposing mech just my spraying them with 13 flamers.
So no to MW3 flamers.