Flame Throwers...
Konohas Perverted Hermit
Join Date: 2008-09-26 Member: 65075Members
Join Date: 2008-09-26 Member: 65075Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Touching an easy issue...</div>I think Flame Throwers should be added to Natural Selection 2. As a personal Marine weapon that the Commander could drop from the Armory, a Life Form suppression system you could upgrade onto your Mobile Siege engines, and as a Turret you could purchase to drop along side with a Turret Factory. They'd follow along the lines of the Military ones that use a combination of flammable liquid (usually liquid Napalm) and an inert gas such as Nitrogen along with a pilot light (pilot flame fueled by a small Propane tank). It'd be a heavy unit slowing the Marine using it by 10% movement wise. Any Life Form or structure hit with the flame would burn heavily while in the flame or they would burn slowly if set on fire until the flame burns itself out or until a Gorge Heal Sprays them. The personal version's flame would could shoot about 20 feet, the turret's flame could shoot about 25 feet, and the Mobile Siege Engine's flame could shoot about 15 feet.
If the personal versions were to get ruptured or punctured (by an attack from bites or explosions such as Xenocide) they could explode hurting both teammates and Aliens, most likely killing the Marine wearing it. Turreted Flame Throwers and the one on the Mobile Siege Engines would explode upon destruction. Any information on current or past flame throwers can be found on the Link below.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_thrower" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_thrower</a>
Any thoughts?
P.S. I searched for a Topic already in suggestion about it but I couldn't find one.
If the personal versions were to get ruptured or punctured (by an attack from bites or explosions such as Xenocide) they could explode hurting both teammates and Aliens, most likely killing the Marine wearing it. Turreted Flame Throwers and the one on the Mobile Siege Engines would explode upon destruction. Any information on current or past flame throwers can be found on the Link below.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_thrower" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_thrower</a>
Any thoughts?
P.S. I searched for a Topic already in suggestion about it but I couldn't find one.
Comments
The NS2 team recently said that the flamethrower purpose is to clear out infected area that jam elevator and shaft etc.
Having the flamethrower as a primary weapon would made it harder for the alien side, as an alien your strategy to kill a marine is ambush and hit and run, you having a hard time enough already trying to avoid bullets now with burning over time make you think twice before approaching a marine, because even after you successfully run away from the marine you still could get kill by the flame that burning you, survival is now much more crucial. And as you know, not alot of people tend to go Gorge so your one stop extinguisher are going to be hard to find in time of need.
The idea of having it to explode when attacked upon, will lead to suicide bomber marine strategy. Let put it this way, one marine walk into the hive with a flame thrower and try to make BBQ out of the hive, 3 skulk leap toward and attack the marine result in a massive explosion that caused 2 of his alien teammates to die and inflict even more damage on the hive. The Commander sitting on his chair laughing his ass off and just keep sending in more flamethrower until the hive is down.
Flamethrower upgrade for siege mobile would work in case of bad marine team that doesn't take care of it.
On my opinion flamethrower should be a secondary attack for wielder, to clear out infected area and maybe could be use as a weapon, as for damage I would say it could have the same damage as a lmg. As for burning, I still not sure...
With that said, I don't think it should be out of the question, just something you'd pay dearly for. In that sense, I don't mean that it would cost a lot of resources (around 15 resources I'd say).
I mean that if a marine dies with flame thrower, all adjacent marines as well as aliens are hurt. Furthermore, a marine must be HA to wield one (prevents flamethrower kamikazis). Think about it though. Although marines would have an advantage to have a marine with one against fades and onos, if he dies, all nearby marines are going to take the equivalent of a close Kamikazi skulk attack. You might say so what.. well in a team of heavies, that would probably halve all their armor easily. Consider then that they're likely going to be the ones most picked on for the advantage that they give the humans and the fact that they damage humans in close range, unless used properly, it could easily wipe out a team if two marines with flame throwers went down.
Makes it a risky strategy for marines. Used only in situations in which perhaps the one with the flame thrower would be pointman against a potentially nasty onslaught of fades and onos.
Exploding fuel tanks that rupture in an inferno are absurd as the content of a flamethrower's fuel containers is extremely difficult to ignite, and requires incendiary compounds to combust. At worst, the gas container responsible for pressurization of the fuel would propel the flamethrower operator when breached.
Also on another note your pilot light would always be light making that always famous torch burning sound. Then on the personal version you'd need to reload the Napalm tank, then Nitrogen tank, and then Propane/Butane tank (pilot light tank). Thus making using it as a personal weapon even harder.
It is unlikely at best. Look up the wikipedia entry on flamethrowers. Now consider that the TSA is armed with some pretty futuristic hardware. If the chances of a modern flamethrower detonating in a blaze are slim, what would they be for another with technology decades more advanced?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We're going to start excluding things from ns2 because it isn't realistic now? Come on.. guys.. go out more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My primary objection is that the fiery explosion is excessive as a balancing mechanic.
That all said, I've got an idea to keep the Flamethrower viable in the lategame; an upgrade via the Prototype Lab to a Plasmathrower. This would be effective versus Fades and Onos, but still retains the core disadvantages of short range and speed reduction.
The fact that it is set in the future and we can't use Slugs in our Shotguns? Come on all we have is Aught Buckshot, if you check the spread it isn't even Double or Triple. The fact that the weapons were made for humans killing humans and then the Aliens invaded so we used what we have to kill them. Hence a simple weapon such as a flame thrower which would have been used to incinerate packed hordes of humans. I doubt if they weren't using lugs, rifled slugs, hallow point slugs, HE grenades, Fragmentation grenades, armor piercing rounds, hallow point bullets, and/or incendiary rounds; that they'd take time to make an extremely flammable liquid that stuck onto it's target and kept burning even after exposed to the flamethrower's initial burn that wouldn't explode if ruptured and then exposed to a heat source.
<!--quoteo(post=1689591:date=Oct 7 2008, 09:34 AM:name=Captain Skill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Captain Skill @ Oct 7 2008, 09:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689591"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My primary objection is that the fiery explosion is excessive as a balancing mechanic.
That all said, I've got an idea to keep the Flamethrower viable in the lategame; an upgrade via the Prototype Lab to a Plasmathrower. This would be effective versus Fades and Onos, but still retains the core disadvantages of short range and speed reduction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not if you are adding Plasma based weaponry to add Plasma Bazookas, Rifles, Pistols, Cannons, Mines, and Orbital Satellites? Sorry that is a little too much, because if you've used a Plasma Cutter before you'd realize something that burns that hot and cuts through metal so fast that if exposed to a fleshy target it'd just catch them ablaze leaving a ashy heap in their place. That and you need to have a Plasma Cutter grounded to even preform a super heated stream of Plasma, and I doubt an Alien is just gonna stand there while you attack an electrode to em.
Actually, I think that sounds like a cool game mechanic for the flamethrower. Secondary tosses an electrode that attracts all plasma/flame to that point for a little while, but takes 2 secs or so to charge once attached. There'd have to be some other balancing features to prevent it from being OP, but could be neat.
Maybe it could be removed by healspray or something similar.
I think it's pretty obvious that all of these sub-denominations weren't included for the sake of simplicity. In either case, the fact that the TSA uses subpar munitions is no excuse for them employing outright hazardous and suicidal weaponry. The fact is that there is no way futuristic flamethrowers used by any military or paramilitary organization would feature an even meaningful probability of fiery detonation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why not if you are adding Plasma based weaponry to add Plasma Bazookas, Rifles, Pistols, Cannons, Mines, and Orbital Satellites? Sorry that is a little too much, because if you've used a Plasma Cutter before you'd realize something that burns that hot and cuts through metal so fast that if exposed to a fleshy target it'd just catch them ablaze leaving a ashy heap in their place. That and you need to have a Plasma Cutter grounded to even preform a super heated stream of Plasma, and I doubt an Alien is just gonna stand there while you attack an electrode to em.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because a Plasmathrower is by comparison a relatively simplistic weapon (mines aside), and easily within the purview of TSA technology, especially if it would require the Protolab as a pre-req. Further, you don't need to attach an electrode to the alien in order to direct the weapon's plasma stream at it; we already have the technology in the present day to project plasma to non-conductive surfaces via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cutting" target="_blank">enclosed plasma ignition arcs</a>.
he knows his facts o_0
Black Napalm is another option if you non-believers dont like the PlasmaThrower
I do believe the welder in NS uses plasma <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> tell me if i'm wrong
We do have plasma today, problem is, we dont have the sufficent tech to make what the covenant have in halo for their plasma rifles/pistols/etc, electromagnetic wall to encase it and send it. The plasma we have now disperses 1-2 meters from firing, making an efficent flamethrower replacment....but since we cant use flameys in real world... it's used in other stuff.
Lol suicidal weaponry? What the hell is Xenocide then? A nice blast from the past? Fact is I think if there is going to be something that would easily eliminate lower lifeforms and structures plus infected areas it should be hazardous to use, period.
<!--quoteo(post=1689618:date=Oct 7 2008, 12:52 PM:name=Captain Skill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Captain Skill @ Oct 7 2008, 12:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689618"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because a Plasmathrower is by comparison a relatively simplistic weapon (mines aside), and easily within the purview of TSA technology, especially if it would require the Protolab as a pre-req. Further, you don't need to attach an electrode to the alien in order to direct the weapon's plasma stream at it; we already have the technology in the present day to project plasma to non-conductive surfaces via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cutting" target="_blank">enclosed plasma ignition arcs</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but that still only produces a Plasma arc of a maximum (reducing strength for length) of about 3 inches and still be able to cut. If a Welder in Natural Selection is a Plasma welder in a very portable form, even that only produces an arc of 4 inches from your target. So again, unreasonable.
The Kharaa are about Machiavellian battle tactics and self-sacrifice, not the TSA which strives to minimize casualties. The existing drawbacks of limited range, slowness, resource costs, pre-reqs (armoury), and ineffectiveness versus advanced aliens are more than sufficient.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes but that still only produces a Plasma arc of a maximum (reducing strength for length) of about 3 inches and still be able to cut. If a Welder in Natural Selection is a Plasma welder in a very portable form, even that only produces an arc of 4 inches from your target. So again, unreasonable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a prototype tech, an enclosed arc capable of projecting plasma several meters should definitely be within the technological boundaries of the TSA. Alternatively, plasma could be generated inside the weapon and released, with a limited range magnetic field guiding it. This too should be accessible technology.
If we have magnetic fields today, but no stronge enough ones that can be detached from their power source and thrown a good rifle bullet distance before disapating, then they should be able to make a 'wave' of electromagnetic energy to channel the plasma into a arc toward a target. The 'wave' is invisible and can easily be directed, as we today use special control points on each end of something to rap it in EM, by a shot control point that bends the wave of EM towards its target. Since the EM field rejects heat, it bounces the heat back into the funnel, making the plasma not cool down while funneling, the tip of the spray, however, will cool abit since it is in direct contact with air for the heat to switch off to. So the initial firing of the gun will take a delay, since, for example, the plasma spews out of the gun at one foot per second, and the tip of the plasma cools from touching oxygen at six inches per second, making it take one to three seconds for it to to actually gain speed and length.
Oh, and for a side note, the idea of a Plasmathrower is safer, since the plasma isn't plasma till it's heated, and you could probably carry more of the plasma gas for less weight since you don't need so much other fuels to get it to work.
If we have magnetic fields today, but no stronge enough ones that can be detached from their power source and thrown a good rifle bullet distance before disapating, then they should be able to make a 'wave' of electromagnetic energy to channel the plasma into a arc toward a target. The 'wave' is invisible and can easily be directed, as we today use special control points on each end of something to rap it in EM, by a shot control point that bends the wave of EM towards its target. Since the EM field rejects heat, it bounces the heat back into the funnel, making the plasma not cool down while funneling, the tip of the spray, however, will cool abit since it is in direct contact with air for the heat to switch off to. So the initial firing of the gun will take a delay, since, for example, the plasma spews out of the gun at one foot per second, and the tip of the plasma cools from touching oxygen at six inches per second, making it take one to three seconds for it to to actually gain speed and length.
Oh, and for a side note, the idea of a Plasmathrower is safer, since the plasma isn't plasma till it's heated, and you could probably carry more of the plasma gas for less weight since you don't need so much other fuels to get it to work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Longest read I've read to date that makes absolutely no sense.
*cries in the corner*
ok.
Im saying it's within the TSA's tech bugget if we can make EM 'cases' they can make EM 'funnels'
Reread it, you might understand =D
It could have a narrow beginning flame and get wide at the end, or you can use the Command & Conquer Red Alert Idea, fire balls, which can be explaned logicly how they are done.
A limited EM field/funnel would prevent blooming long enough to impact a target at short distances. A railgun method of utilizing a stream of many tiny, rapidly fired EM propelled projectiles would also work. Lasers used to ionize the air to the target would also work as a method of directing plasma. All of these methods are viable means of plasma projection. Leave it to advanced TSA tech to address issues of expense. The fundamental science behind both concepts is sound. See the wikipedia entry on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_rifle" target="_blank">Plasma rifles</a>.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> This is where it gets fun.
Ok, lets say the TSA do have the technology to contain plasma using projected magnetic fields or some such pseudocrap.
So you want to equip marines with portable fusion reactors why exactly? What can a plasma gun do that a combination a flamethrower, acetylene blow torch and a main battle rifle can't? Of course the first two have no place in the NS universe as weapons, so we're left with plasma rifle vs main battle rifle.
I will take an order of 20 rifles please.
It's not pseudocrap. It's very much plausible, especially laser guided methods, which are currently being explored as a means of projecting electric discharges for ranged stun weapons.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you want to equip marines with portable fusion reactors why exactly? What can a plasma gun do that a combination a flamethrower, acetylene blow torch and a main battle rifle can't? Of course the first two have no place in the NS universe as weapons, so we're left with plasma rifle vs main battle rifle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reduce an Onos and most alien structures to cinders in <b>seconds</b>? Let's see a typical flamethrower or battle rifle pull that off. You go for the plasmathrower because it has incredible lethality, albeit at the cost of many resources and considerable prerequisites (as well as its bulk and short range).
<!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->ME LIKE FIRE!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<img src="http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2065/killitwithfiretb4.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I'm still in favor for having the Funnel of EM that would keep the plasma hot enough to reach a short range target, maybe 3-5 meters, compared to the flamethrowers 5-7 meters, so in getting this buff, you downgrade the range of the weapon, but greatly increase its damage output in to disintegrate objects short seconds. The flame thrower, though, gets very weaker as the farther out the flame is, as when plasma cools to the highest temperature the flame has, it is no longer plasma, so it has a wide bloom, were only the center does as much damage as the edge of the plasma.
Having the plasma upgraded from the Protolab is a necessary thing, and the new gun should cost a motherload, making it a MUST to defend or you have just wasted, maybe, 100 res? The normal Flamethrower can be 50 res, 20 more than a HMG and GL.
Secondly, this method works by disintegration of tiny rail propelled projectiles which become the thrown plasma; there is no channeling, nor plasma encapsulation.
As for difficulty, if a given method is challenging to realize now, chances are it'll be simplistic achieve by the time of the TSA. Just look at the infant fields of nanotech and quantum teleportation.