|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
235
   |
Posted - 2012.07.18 05:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
Please? |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 05:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nexus Cavor wrote:Cleanse them with fire!
Brotherhood of Nod anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aif9rz71CYQ |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 05:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Drax Intenin wrote:This would look epic but i think our shields would resist flames really easily as they already resist plasma shots which are much hotter.
Doesn't have to be fire specifically. It could be a plasma gel or something that functions like napalm but is more space age-y. A short range, area damage-over-time weapon that you'd say "hey that looks like a flamethrower." Maybe it could even stick to people for a lasting dot effect (not deadly in itself, but add a small amount of damage to someone as they run away after you just briefly pass over them). |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 06:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nexus Cavor wrote:I personally don't think we need a flamethrower. I'd rather have ammo damage types over this... I also think it(Flamethrower) would be as useful as a poison gas grenade... We are in suits that I imagine have their own air supply and atmosphere... Not going to work.
If you want an anti-infantry tank... Fit it with turrets that shoot lots of bullets. Flames are too much of an AOE to work for anything other than clearing out an entire area. Guess what? We already have something to do that anyway... It is called an... Orbital Strike...
Wouldn't want to nerf that before we get a chance to use it now would we?
How is poison gas a proper comparison to something flamethrower-like? You don't need to be breathing the surrounding atmosphere to get melted. It could be some kind of superheated gel, not necessarily a literal flame. And, it doesn't have to be devastatingly powerful to compensate for its area effect, and could have limited range. It wouldn't be anywhere comparable to an orbital strike. |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 20:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nexus Cavor wrote:I just don't see flames being super damaging to something that is heavily shielded. At least not enough to be useful.
It doesn't have to be super damaging, though. Its strength would be in its coating an entire area, and blocking visibility (either in as you said shooting a flame through a narrow corridor, or also covering an enemy's screen in hot death as they stand in the middle of it to disorient them). I see it being with limited range, too. Just throwing numbers out there before we'd have a chance to balance it, my gut reaction is something along the lines of:
30 hp/sec damage
10m range
15 degree area
5 hp/sec damage for 5 secs lasting effect
overheats in 5 sec
Advanced/prototype variants could slightly increase any or several of those values.
Encharrion wrote:Veigar Mordekaiser wrote:I would rather see a short range AOE damage weapon on the LAV, tanks are to slow to really make use of that I would think. A plasma flamethrower type small turret would be AWESOME!
I'm in favor of there being both large and small turret versions for it. The slow tank would help balance a more damaging large turret version.
I see it more for an offensive support role for a tank. It'd be there to keep the other tanks safe from infantry getting close, but would get shot to hell by AV or another tank. The range would be limited so it wouldn't be stupidly overpowered, and if you got caught offguard, you're melted, but if you see it from a mile away, just unload as you keep your distance and you're fine. |
|
|
| |
|