Phase gates are still new, like one half a year new. I'm for the funneling EM cause the plasma thrower is supposed to be an upgraded flame thrower, so it needs to fire similar to one.
Phase gates may be new, but nanotech is definitely well established.
In any case, the dynamics and functionality of a railgun actuated plasmathrower will be similar to that of a flamethrower, firing a jet of plasma at comparable distances.
<!--quoteo(post=1689896:date=Oct 10 2008, 07:50 PM:name=Captain Skill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Captain Skill @ Oct 10 2008, 07:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689896"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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. 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).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, TECHNICALLY, a .50cal machine gun with decent ammo would reduce an onos to gore in a second. If that isn't fast enough, consider one of those new Russian shoulder mounter grenade systems which will reduce a modern main battle tank to rubble in a single hit.
Alternatively, plasma can be stopped by reactive ceramic armor if it somehow makes it all the way to the target.
If you're advocating for a flamethrower which makes a good weapon gameplay wise, it is a terrible idea because of taking very little skill to connect with a target. Lets just say that aliens are made out of flame retardant and leave it at that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, TECHNICALLY, a .50cal machine gun with decent ammo would reduce an onos to gore in a second. If that isn't fast enough, consider one of those new Russian shoulder mounter grenade systems which will reduce a modern main battle tank to rubble in a single hit.
Alternatively, plasma can be stopped by reactive ceramic armor if it somehow makes it all the way to the target.
If you're advocating for a flamethrower which makes a good weapon gameplay wise, it is a terrible idea because of taking very little skill to connect with a target. Lets just say that aliens are made out of flame retardant and leave it at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, and TECHNICALLY .50 cal machine guns can't be fired standing with any degree of reliability or accuracy (in so long as you can hold onto the thing). Shoulder mounted weapons suffer from severely limited munition capacities, long reload times and slow fire rates; not an ideal weapon for what is largely close quarter combat, especially in environments where breaching of your combat area is a risk that must be avoided at all costs. Collateral damage in deep space is bad (especially the kind caused by tank busting munitions).
Secondly, reactive armour is only effective for a limited duration. It will not stop a continuous plasma stream.
Finally, using a flamethrower style weapon well requires just as much, if not more skill than using a full auto weapon like the HMG; both are less about aiming so much as tracking (which is in actuality a skill, especially given the speed and maneuverability of some aliens), and the flamethrower in addition is only usable at close range, a considerable disadvantage in many situations that requires tactical thinking and maneuvers (e.g. flanking, ambushes, cover fire) to compensate for.
<!--quoteo(post=1690099:date=Oct 12 2008, 08:20 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Oct 12 2008, 08:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're advocating for a flamethrower which makes a good weapon gameplay wise, it is a terrible idea because of taking very little skill to connect with a target. Lets just say that aliens are made out of flame retardant and leave it at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So.... the argument is spray and burn versus melee = borken, right?
What if the fire also does friendly fire, if it touches a surface ignites it for a bit dealing damage to those that touch it? You lose the ability to advance, and can't simply blast the area or risk injuring self and others. Instead, it becomes a defensive or ambush weapon, maybe also a room clearing/building clearing weapon. Plus, you have to be the first one in unless you want to fry all the teammates in front of you.
Sorry if these were already suggested, I didn't read the whole thread.
I don't see at all the railgun method for plasma being anywhere near a flamethrower delivery. My idea of an EM funnel to direct the plasma and keep it hot is the best one.
Now plasma doesn't cause fire to stick to surfaces, so getting this upgrade get's rid of that, it will, however, ignite anything flamable. The plasma won't stick burn, but rather melt the surface it lands on, no fire.
One new disadvantage the plasma can have over the flame is that you can't move and fire, as you have to stop, and activate the EM funnel, then fire the plasma, two to three seconds of vulnerability.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One new disadvantage the plasma can have over the flame is that you can't move and fire, as you have to stop, and activate the EM funnel, then fire the plasma, two to three seconds of vulnerability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would the plasmathrower need additional vulnerabilities, especially glaring ones? It's already much more expensive, and has considerable pre-reqs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see at all the railgun method for plasma being anywhere near a flamethrower delivery. My idea of an EM funnel to direct the plasma and keep it hot is the best one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off it's not 'your idea'. It was one of several possibilities I listed. Secondly, the railgun method effectively releases a limited range jet of plasma made of disintegrated projectiles, much like a flamethrower discharges a limited range jet of flaming napalm.
<!--quoteo(post=1690104:date=Oct 12 2008, 08:39 PM:name=Captain Skill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Captain Skill @ Oct 12 2008, 08:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, and TECHNICALLY .50 cal machine guns can't be fired standing with any degree of reliability or accuracy (in so long as you can hold onto the thing).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Semi-auto .50cal standing is realistic enough, (full auto from prone position) if accuracy isn't too much of an issue. Also, wear ballistic shoulder pads.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Shoulder mounted weapons suffer from severely limited munition capacities, long reload times and slow fire rates; not an ideal weapon for what is largely close quarter combat, especially in environments where breaching of your combat area is a risk that must be avoided at all costs. Collateral damage in deep space is bad (especially the kind caused by tank busting munitions).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think you quite understand the meaning of a 1 shot kill on an onos.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, using a flamethrower style weapon well requires just as much, if not more skill than using a full auto weapon like the HMG; both are less about aiming so much as tracking (which is in actuality a skill, especially given the speed and maneuverability of some aliens), and the flamethrower in addition is only usable at close range, a considerable disadvantage in many situations that requires tactical thinking and maneuvers (e.g. flanking, ambushes, cover fire) to compensate for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Larger fire cone = less skill. (The LMG had 0 spread in 1.04 but was judged too impossible to use for unskilled players) Continuous larger fire cone = 0 skill.
Any way you look at it, flamethrowers require much less skill to use than the lmg against aliens. They must therefore be proportionally ineffective against aliens. Seriously, have you ever thought about how someone can miss with those things? You have to be a serious <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CPD0ZBFmVA" target="_blank">hellabean</a>.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Semi-auto .50cal standing is realistic enough, (full auto from prone position) if accuracy isn't too much of an issue. Also, wear ballistic shoulder pads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your initial shot will be accurate when standing. The others? Forget it, unless you take time to recover from the recoil, but by that time, you're pretty dead. Further, the full-auto recoil is only truly managable with a proper deployment (see my machine gun emplacements). Lastly, .50 cal machine guns are huge and cumbersome, and not something you ever carry for prolonged periods. Try hefting around a fully assembled, fully loaded M2 Browning; not much fun, I can assure you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think you quite understand the meaning of a 1 shot kill on an onos.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'd be wrong. However, I don't believe you understand the meaning of deep space hull breach. The weapon is simply too dangerous to use in most space facilities due to the risk posed by a missed shot, to say nothing of its litany of other shortcomings which make it an impractical weapon in almost every situation versus the Kharaa. There are very good reasons as to why .50 cal sniper rifles and rocket launchers aren't in the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Larger fire cone = less skill. (The LMG had 0 spread in 1.04 but was judged too impossible to use for unskilled players) Continuous larger fire cone = 0 skill.
Any way you look at it, flamethrowers require much less skill to use than the lmg against aliens. They must therefore be proportionally ineffective against aliens. Seriously, have you ever thought about how someone can miss with those things? You have to be a serious hellabean.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So HMGs should be removed or nerfed by your logic? The plasmathrower's power is balanced by its resource cost, weight, short range and prerequisites, and requires more tactical thinking than the LMG to use optimally.
Ehh, I first introduced the funnel of EM to this topic, I never made it up, and do not take credit. But yes, I was first to say that idea in this particular topic.
Shut up, all of you, the HMG (and any other weapon unless used as a comparative) is not what this topic is about, it's about the flamethrower, and any upgrades given to it.
I know the Railgun method of plasma, I read the article, don't babysit me on that sh**.
Well, you can strike off the need to stop and fire, but in all logic, you can't have the EM field on forever. So, on the flamethrower, you can't keep spewing till you run dry, or you'll over heat, causing you to take minimal damage per second till you let it cool. The plasmathrower, however, will just be you can't shoot till you dry, or you'll overdue the EM field emitter, and if you do, you are left with a one foot range super welder.
Meaning you'll always be able to attack, but with flame you take one to five damage per X seconds and with plasma, you lose all your range, but don't take damage.
Good enough for yall? You can quote and underline what you want out if you really want to.
<!--quoteo(post=1690200:date=Oct 13 2008, 06:38 PM:name=Captain Skill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Captain Skill @ Oct 13 2008, 06:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690200"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but by that time, you're pretty dead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211" target="_blank">REALLY.</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Further, the full-auto recoil is only truly managable with a proper deployment (see my machine gun emplacements).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A simple bipod will do.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lastly, .50 cal machine guns are huge and cumbersome, and not something you ever carry for prolonged periods. Try hefting around a fully assembled, fully loaded M2 Browning; not much fun, I can assure you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Plastics/fiberglass parts + higher quality steel come to mind. There is no reason for a slightly upscale battle rifle to be much bigger than a G3/Cetme/FAL.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You'd be wrong. However, I don't believe you understand the meaning of deep space hull breach. The weapon is simply too dangerous to use in most space facilities due to the risk posed by a missed shot,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->to say nothing of its litany of other shortcomings which make it an impractical weapon in almost every situation versus the Kharaa. There are very good reasons as to why .50 cal sniper rifles and rocket launchers aren't in the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game. B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So HMGs should be removed or nerfed by your logic? The plasmathrower's power is balanced by its resource cost, weight, short range and prerequisites, and requires more tactical thinking than the LMG to use optimally.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.
I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be <u>much cooler</u> if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.
<!--quoteo(post=1690214:date=Oct 13 2008, 03:49 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Oct 13 2008, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690214"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211" target="_blank">REALLY.</a> A simple bipod will do. I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy. A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game. B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also. HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.
I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be <u>much cooler</u> if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1690207:date=Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM:name=ryknow69)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ryknow69 @ Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690207"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Shut up, all of you, the HMG (and any other weapon unless used as a comparative) is not what this topic is about, it's about the flamethrower, and any upgrades given to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> eh, y can no1 read?
<!--quoteo(post=1690214:date=Oct 13 2008, 03:49 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Oct 13 2008, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690214"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211" target="_blank">REALLY.</a> A simple bipod will do. I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy. A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game. B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also. HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.
I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be <u>much cooler</u> if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1690207:date=Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM:name=ryknow69)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ryknow69 @ Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690207"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Shut up, all of you, the HMG (and any other weapon unless used as a comparative) is not what this topic is about, it's about the flamethrower, and any upgrades given to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> eh, y can no1 read?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ehh, I first introduced the funnel of EM to this topic, I never made it up, and do not take credit. But yes, I was first to say that idea in this particular topic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, kindly review the history of the posts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, you can strike off the need to stop and fire, but in all logic, you can't have the EM field on forever. So, on the flamethrower, you can't keep spewing till you run dry, or you'll over heat, causing you to take minimal damage per second till you let it cool. The plasmathrower, however, will just be you can't shoot till you dry, or you'll overdue the EM field emitter, and if you do, you are left with a one foot range super welder.
Meaning you'll always be able to attack, but with flame you take one to five damage per X seconds and with plasma, you lose all your range, but don't take damage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes really. You might be able to one hit kill most alien lifeforms at best, but by the time you can actually aim properly again, you're skulk chow for the other aliens. There is a reason .50 cal sniper rifles are meticulously prepared for firing, and are ALWAYS used properly braced and deployed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A simple bipod will do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're hefting around this huge, pre-assembled .50 cal machine gun complete with bipod? Too cumbersome and bulky.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plastics/fiberglass parts + higher quality steel come to mind. There is no reason for a slightly upscale battle rifle to be much bigger than a G3/Cetme/FAL.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, if the HMG slows you down even with all the technology the TSA has, and fires bullets of a much smaller and less powerful calibre, this ultra heavy .50 cal machine gun is going to be a nightmare to move around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game. B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A grenade launcher does not fire tank destroying munitions. A heavy machine gun is not an armour penetrating .50 cal anti-materiel sniper rifle. Big differences.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do understand that the HMG has less prerequisites and will probably cost less than the Plasmathrower, while retaining ranged capabilities, and requiring less skill to use effectively than it, right? Even though the Plasmathrower will be much more powerful at close range, the weapon's other deficits more than make up for this. In summary, the Plasmathrower is a late game, (possibly mid on a tech rush) weapon. By that time, you've got the resources to use better suited lifeforms versus it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plasma would take quite awhile to melt through a reinforced hull; much longer than a tank destroying munition would take to breach it. Bringing anti-tank weaponry aboard a space station when you actually intend to use it is just an inexcusably bad idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be much cooler if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think both Flamethrowers and Plasmathrowers should exist; the former being the marine's CQC weapon of choice for the beginning, the latter for the late game.
No, the plasmathrower is been talked about as a upgrade from the flame, not a seperate gun in all.
Meaning?
You get adv armory, and drop a flamethrower. then u get a proto, 1st thing i'd research, Plasma Containment, or simply, EM field tech, as i do, in all truth, think the welder is a plasma torch, so they have plasma, just need to research the EM field. *Logic Ranting*
Plasma, if held at a point of the hull for like 15 seconds, would greatly deform the outer surface, but leave the hull intact, since the metal quickly hardens back, but a missile, a missile will throw the chunks across the room, leaving the hole. Plasma just melts the metal. ^i know thats confusing, if you dont get my sh**ty typing, i'll make a diagram.
AGAIN, FTLOC, STOP FU**ING TALKING ABOUT THE HMG OR ANY OTHER NEW GUN >=(
This is the what topic kids? The HMG topic? No, all you get F's, it's the "Flame Throwers..., Touching an easy issue..." topic.
only talk about the HMG as a comparative to the flamey in sense of gameplay and yady yada
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, the plasmathrower is been talked about as a upgrade from the flame, not a seperate gun in all.
Meaning?
You get adv armory, and drop a flamethrower. then u get a proto, 1st thing i'd research, Plasma Containment, or simply, EM field tech, as i do, in all truth, think the welder is a plasma torch, so they have plasma, just need to research the EM field. *Logic Ranting*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You may be talking about the Plasmathrower as an upgrade. I am not. It is an upgrade to me only in so far as it behaves similarly to the Flamethrower, but is a superior weapon.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plasma, if held at a point of the hull for like 15 seconds, would greatly deform the outer surface, but leave the hull intact, since the metal quickly hardens back, but a missile, a missile will throw the chunks across the room, leaving the hole. Plasma just melts the metal. ^i know thats confusing, if you dont get my sh**ty typing, i'll make a diagram.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With persistence I've little doubt the Plasma would indeed cause a breach by melting through the hull. What you describe is only ever possible if the plasma is withdrawn at some point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->AGAIN, FTLOC, STOP FU**ING TALKING ABOUT THE HMG OR ANY OTHER NEW GUN >=(
This is the what topic kids? The HMG topic? No, all you get F's, it's the "Flame Throwers..., Touching an easy issue..." topic.
only talk about the HMG as a comparative to the flamey in sense of gameplay and yady yada<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't be silly. The HMG, and its properties are being referenced because it is pertinent to an ongoing argument, namely that the Plasmathrower wouldn't be skill intensive enough to make a good addition to the game. It is hypocritical and fallacious to assert this if one simultaneously believes the HMG demands enough skill to warrant inclusion.
that's a thing left to the dev team, maybe the plasmathrower does need the can't fire and move defect.
Cpt, i know it is, but we don't need LOGIC discussion, i said unless comparative to the plasma, which is what your reason for talking about the HMG is, but half of the talk i see is logic talk for the HMG, the only logic talk in this is for the plasma/flamethrower.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, you die as a fade and you are now a skulk. The marines have 5 plasma guns out. What do you do? Die?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You kite the marines and attack from a distance after morphing into a race better suited to kill them. Because they're slowed, and have no medium/long range capability, they are both easy targets and can't retaliate. Marines die EZ and you probably don't even take damage.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Cpt, i know it is, but we don't need LOGIC discussion, i said unless comparative to the plasma, which is what your reason for talking about the HMG is, but half of the talk i see is logic talk for the HMG, the only logic talk in this is for the plasma/flamethrower.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's necessary to draw a parallel with the HMG in order to show that the skill-based argument against the Plasmathrower lacks in merit. This is the one and only reason it is mentioned at all in this thread.
=/ fine, but the discussion like "add a bi-pod" isnt relivant, keep it to what logic is needed, so we dont get off topic, thank you though.
Marines aren't that hard to kill, and plasma takes just enough seconds to kill you as it does for you to Focus Swipe him. You could also gas him, acid rocket him, spit him, the list goes on.
yes, since my ideals for the flame and plasma show that the flamey actually will have more range than plasma, but isnt as effetive against fades and onos'.
<!--quoteo(post=1690410:date=Oct 15 2008, 06:57 PM:name=Captain Skill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Captain Skill @ Oct 15 2008, 06:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anything ranged basically owns Plasmathrowers. They can't even chase after you properly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea except aliens don't really have any ranged attacks minus spit and acid rocket, and I want to keep it that way.
^ i do too, but since the weapon makes them slow, it also makes their turn speed slow, making them vulnerable to skulks, since they can hold onto walls as the plasma trooper passes then mauls their ass, literally
Yes but all you kids are forgetting the purpose of a Flame Thrower, they were made to incinerate anything in a small place and burn the Oxygen out of the air. They aren't really practical as a kill everything weapon. The reason I think they should be in game is to incinerate small cramped spaces of lifeforms and structures. Basically anything small and organic would be annihilated by one. Though certain restrictions such as a triple reload at the armory, slower move speed, a long while to drop the weapon (back straps and chest straps), and possible friendly fire damage would be draw backs of such a weapon.
The Plasma Throwers maybe obtainable by the Marine's technology but it would be far overpowered. To make such a weapon balanced you'd need to make the firing sequence take a few seconds to begin (3-5 seconds), drops speed even more (maybe 10% more than a flame thrower), while firing you could move but you'd only go at 50% of your maximum (which would be a snail's pace), extra upgrade needed in the Prototype laboratory to drop (50ish resources), the technology implemented in such a weapon would make it very pricey as well (25ish resources per unit), and definite friendly fire damage to Marines and Marine structures.
Such a weapon as a Plasma Thrower would heavily damage anything organic, most likely killing it just a few seconds. Even lifeforms as large as Fades and Onos would be seriously damaged fast; structures especially small ones like chambers would be destroyed very fast, the Hive would seem like it were under siege from several cannons. Fellow Marines would be seriously harmed if not killed in caught in the path one and structures would take extreme damage if exposed to the Plasma. Basically my point here is even if the technology were obtainable and were used the downsides of a Plasma Thrower would be too great. A constant stream of Plasma that is around 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit, would be so overpowered in the destruction it could unleash, would make the game very unfair and undesirable for the Alien side. That is one thing none of you are considering. The fact is if you had a portable weaponized version of a Plasma Cutter it'd be like dowsing Lightning in a constant stream onto your target. So keep that in mind before you further discuss the addition of such a weapon.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yea except aliens don't really have any ranged attacks minus spit and acid rocket, and I want to keep it that way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As well as offense chambers and toxic gas. These are enough.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Plasma Throwers maybe obtainable by the Marine's technology but it would be far overpowered. To make such a weapon balanced you'd need to make the firing sequence take a few seconds to begin (3-5 seconds), drops speed even more (maybe 10% more than a flame thrower), while firing you could move but you'd only go at 50% of your maximum (which would be a snail's pace), extra upgrade needed in the Prototype laboratory to drop (50ish resources), the technology implemented in such a weapon would make it very pricey as well (25ish resources per unit), and definite friendly fire damage to Marines and Marine structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. These changes in their totality is an overnerf. There are plenty of ways to balance the weapon; leave it to the devs to select the best through playtesting.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As well as offense chambers and toxic gas. These are enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Offense chambers can't stop any self-respecting player. Spores can't hurt heavies and to me it sounds like the plasma stuff would be handed out in tandem with those. This gun would be the ultimate frustration for aliens with anything less than a lot of acid rocket fades, and that is a very bad thing. The marines don't even have to be skilled to use it!
Good plan, suggest a totally unneeded weapon and ask the devs to work it into the game. Don't suggest weapons just because they sound cool, tell us how they will add to the gameplay of marine vs <u>alien</u>.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Offense chambers can't stop any self-respecting player. Spores can't hurt heavies and to me it sounds like the plasma stuff would be handed out in tandem with those. This gun would be the ultimate frustration for aliens with anything less than a lot of acid rocket fades, and that is a very bad thing. The marines don't even have to be skilled to use it!
Good plan, suggest a totally unneeded weapon and ask the devs to work it into the game. Don't suggest weapons just because they sound cool, tell us how they will add to the gameplay of marine vs alien.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not suggesting for a 'totally unneeded weapon'. The Plasmathrower has a viable tactical role currently unfilled; lategame close range support/capability. Acid/spit counters massed Plasmathrowers with ease (so does Xenocide, but it's best not to focus on 3 hive abilities in balance discussions), while offense towers can hold them off unless they have some means of sheltered approach. If the marines opt for Heavy armour in tandem, they're further slowed, and thus are even easier and more avoidable targets, besides this combination being ungodly expensive (meaning the aliens have even more resources to throw at them).
Secondly, deferring specific matters and forms of balance to the devs is not 'asking them to work it into the game'. It's a demonstration of the understanding that they are best equipped to come up with those sort of details.
<!--quoteo(post=1690524:date=Oct 16 2008, 01:38 PM:name=Captain Skill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Captain Skill @ Oct 16 2008, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690524"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not suggesting for a 'totally unneeded weapon'. The Plasmathrower has a viable tactical role currently unfilled; lategame close range support/capability. Acid/spit counters massed Plasmathrowers with ease (so does Xenocide, but it's best not to focus on 3 hive abilities in balance discussions), while offense towers can hold them off unless they have some means of sheltered approach. If the marines opt for Heavy armour in tandem, they're further slowed, and thus are even easier and more avoidable targets, besides this combination being ungodly expensive (meaning the aliens have even more resources to throw at them).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Acid is a 3rd hive ability. Aliens have zero useful <3 hive ranged attacks. This is why NS kicks ass. Having a weapon which beats aliens close range no matter what is kind of counter-constructive to the game play. Proto-tech should be only slightly stronger than 2 hive aliens, not completely dominant.
- Hey, lets make aliens purely melee and make marines mostly ranged, and then we will also give marines the ability to consistently beat aliens in melee too.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Secondly, deferring specific matters and forms of balance to the devs is not 'asking them to work it into the game'. It's a demonstration of the understanding that they are best equipped to come up with those sort of details.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Suggest how a weapon can add to the game in the form of enhanced marine vs alien mechanics, not how awesome an onos killing heat seeking nuke is.
Comments
In any case, the dynamics and functionality of a railgun actuated plasmathrower will be similar to that of a flamethrower, firing a jet of plasma at comparable distances.
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).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, TECHNICALLY, a .50cal machine gun with decent ammo would reduce an onos to gore in a second. If that isn't fast enough, consider one of those new Russian shoulder mounter grenade systems which will reduce a modern main battle tank to rubble in a single hit.
Alternatively, plasma can be stopped by reactive ceramic armor if it somehow makes it all the way to the target.
If you're advocating for a flamethrower which makes a good weapon gameplay wise, it is a terrible idea because of taking very little skill to connect with a target. Lets just say that aliens are made out of flame retardant and leave it at that.
Alternatively, plasma can be stopped by reactive ceramic armor if it somehow makes it all the way to the target.
If you're advocating for a flamethrower which makes a good weapon gameplay wise, it is a terrible idea because of taking very little skill to connect with a target. Lets just say that aliens are made out of flame retardant and leave it at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, and TECHNICALLY .50 cal machine guns can't be fired standing with any degree of reliability or accuracy (in so long as you can hold onto the thing). Shoulder mounted weapons suffer from severely limited munition capacities, long reload times and slow fire rates; not an ideal weapon for what is largely close quarter combat, especially in environments where breaching of your combat area is a risk that must be avoided at all costs. Collateral damage in deep space is bad (especially the kind caused by tank busting munitions).
Secondly, reactive armour is only effective for a limited duration. It will not stop a continuous plasma stream.
Finally, using a flamethrower style weapon well requires just as much, if not more skill than using a full auto weapon like the HMG; both are less about aiming so much as tracking (which is in actuality a skill, especially given the speed and maneuverability of some aliens), and the flamethrower in addition is only usable at close range, a considerable disadvantage in many situations that requires tactical thinking and maneuvers (e.g. flanking, ambushes, cover fire) to compensate for.
So.... the argument is spray and burn versus melee = borken, right?
What if the fire also does friendly fire, if it touches a surface ignites it for a bit dealing damage to those that touch it? You lose the ability to advance, and can't simply blast the area or risk injuring self and others. Instead, it becomes a defensive or ambush weapon, maybe also a room clearing/building clearing weapon. Plus, you have to be the first one in unless you want to fry all the teammates in front of you.
Sorry if these were already suggested, I didn't read the whole thread.
I don't see at all the railgun method for plasma being anywhere near a flamethrower delivery. My idea of an EM funnel to direct the plasma and keep it hot is the best one.
Now plasma doesn't cause fire to stick to surfaces, so getting this upgrade get's rid of that, it will, however, ignite anything flamable. The plasma won't stick burn, but rather melt the surface it lands on, no fire.
One new disadvantage the plasma can have over the flame is that you can't move and fire, as you have to stop, and activate the EM funnel, then fire the plasma, two to three seconds of vulnerability.
Why would the plasmathrower need additional vulnerabilities, especially glaring ones? It's already much more expensive, and has considerable pre-reqs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see at all the railgun method for plasma being anywhere near a flamethrower delivery. My idea of an EM funnel to direct the plasma and keep it hot is the best one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off it's not 'your idea'. It was one of several possibilities I listed. Secondly, the railgun method effectively releases a limited range jet of plasma made of disintegrated projectiles, much like a flamethrower discharges a limited range jet of flaming napalm.
Semi-auto .50cal standing is realistic enough, (full auto from prone position) if accuracy isn't too much of an issue. Also, wear ballistic shoulder pads.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Shoulder mounted weapons suffer from severely limited munition capacities, long reload times and slow fire rates; not an ideal weapon for what is largely close quarter combat, especially in environments where breaching of your combat area is a risk that must be avoided at all costs. Collateral damage in deep space is bad (especially the kind caused by tank busting munitions).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you quite understand the meaning of a 1 shot kill on an onos.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, using a flamethrower style weapon well requires just as much, if not more skill than using a full auto weapon like the HMG; both are less about aiming so much as tracking (which is in actuality a skill, especially given the speed and maneuverability of some aliens), and the flamethrower in addition is only usable at close range, a considerable disadvantage in many situations that requires tactical thinking and maneuvers (e.g. flanking, ambushes, cover fire) to compensate for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Larger fire cone = less skill. (The LMG had 0 spread in 1.04 but was judged too impossible to use for unskilled players)
Continuous larger fire cone = 0 skill.
Any way you look at it, flamethrowers require much less skill to use than the lmg against aliens. They must therefore be proportionally ineffective against aliens. Seriously, have you ever thought about how someone can miss with those things? You have to be a serious <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CPD0ZBFmVA" target="_blank">hellabean</a>.
Your initial shot will be accurate when standing. The others? Forget it, unless you take time to recover from the recoil, but by that time, you're pretty dead. Further, the full-auto recoil is only truly managable with a proper deployment (see my machine gun emplacements). Lastly, .50 cal machine guns are huge and cumbersome, and not something you ever carry for prolonged periods. Try hefting around a fully assembled, fully loaded M2 Browning; not much fun, I can assure you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think you quite understand the meaning of a 1 shot kill on an onos.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'd be wrong. However, I don't believe you understand the meaning of deep space hull breach. The weapon is simply too dangerous to use in most space facilities due to the risk posed by a missed shot, to say nothing of its litany of other shortcomings which make it an impractical weapon in almost every situation versus the Kharaa. There are very good reasons as to why .50 cal sniper rifles and rocket launchers aren't in the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Larger fire cone = less skill. (The LMG had 0 spread in 1.04 but was judged too impossible to use for unskilled players)
Continuous larger fire cone = 0 skill.
Any way you look at it, flamethrowers require much less skill to use than the lmg against aliens. They must therefore be proportionally ineffective against aliens. Seriously, have you ever thought about how someone can miss with those things? You have to be a serious hellabean.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So HMGs should be removed or nerfed by your logic? The plasmathrower's power is balanced by its resource cost, weight, short range and prerequisites, and requires more tactical thinking than the LMG to use optimally.
Shut up, all of you, the HMG (and any other weapon unless used as a comparative) is not what this topic is about, it's about the flamethrower, and any upgrades given to it.
I know the Railgun method of plasma, I read the article, don't babysit me on that sh**.
Well, you can strike off the need to stop and fire, but in all logic, you can't have the EM field on forever.
So, on the flamethrower, you can't keep spewing till you run dry, or you'll over heat, causing you to take minimal damage per second till you let it cool.
The plasmathrower, however, will just be you can't shoot till you dry, or you'll overdue the EM field emitter, and if you do, you are left with a one foot range super welder.
Meaning you'll always be able to attack, but with flame you take one to five damage per X seconds and with plasma, you lose all your range, but don't take damage.
Good enough for yall? You can quote and underline what you want out if you really want to.
Oh <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211" target="_blank">REALLY.</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Further, the full-auto recoil is only truly managable with a proper deployment (see my machine gun emplacements).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A simple bipod will do.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lastly, .50 cal machine guns are huge and cumbersome, and not something you ever carry for prolonged periods. Try hefting around a fully assembled, fully loaded M2 Browning; not much fun, I can assure you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plastics/fiberglass parts + higher quality steel come to mind. There is no reason for a slightly upscale battle rifle to be much bigger than a G3/Cetme/FAL.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You'd be wrong. However, I don't believe you understand the meaning of deep space hull breach. The weapon is simply too dangerous to use in most space facilities due to the risk posed by a missed shot,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->to say nothing of its litany of other shortcomings which make it an impractical weapon in almost every situation versus the Kharaa. There are very good reasons as to why .50 cal sniper rifles and rocket launchers aren't in the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game.
B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So HMGs should be removed or nerfed by your logic? The plasmathrower's power is balanced by its resource cost, weight, short range and prerequisites, and requires more tactical thinking than the LMG to use optimally.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.
I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be <u>much cooler</u> if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.
A simple bipod will do.
I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy.
A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game.
B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also.
HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.
I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be <u>much cooler</u> if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1690207:date=Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM:name=ryknow69)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ryknow69 @ Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690207"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Shut up, all of you, the HMG (and any other weapon unless used as a comparative) is not what this topic is about, it's about the flamethrower, and any upgrades given to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
eh, y can no1 read?
A simple bipod will do.
I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy.
A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game.
B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also.
HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.
I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be <u>much cooler</u> if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1690207:date=Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM:name=ryknow69)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ryknow69 @ Oct 13 2008, 03:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690207"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Shut up, all of you, the HMG (and any other weapon unless used as a comparative) is not what this topic is about, it's about the flamethrower, and any upgrades given to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
eh, y can no1 read?
No, kindly review the history of the posts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, you can strike off the need to stop and fire, but in all logic, you can't have the EM field on forever.
So, on the flamethrower, you can't keep spewing till you run dry, or you'll over heat, causing you to take minimal damage per second till you let it cool.
The plasmathrower, however, will just be you can't shoot till you dry, or you'll overdue the EM field emitter, and if you do, you are left with a one foot range super welder.
Meaning you'll always be able to attack, but with flame you take one to five damage per X seconds and with plasma, you lose all your range, but don't take damage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leave details and specifics to the devs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh REALLY.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes really. You might be able to one hit kill most alien lifeforms at best, but by the time you can actually aim properly again, you're skulk chow for the other aliens. There is a reason .50 cal sniper rifles are meticulously prepared for firing, and are ALWAYS used properly braced and deployed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A simple bipod will do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're hefting around this huge, pre-assembled .50 cal machine gun complete with bipod? Too cumbersome and bulky.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plastics/fiberglass parts + higher quality steel come to mind. There is no reason for a slightly upscale battle rifle to be much bigger than a G3/Cetme/FAL.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, if the HMG slows you down even with all the technology the TSA has, and fires bullets of a much smaller and less powerful calibre, this ultra heavy .50 cal machine gun is going to be a nightmare to move around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A) A grenade launcher is actually in the game.
B) A heavy machine gun is in the game also.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A grenade launcher does not fire tank destroying munitions.
A heavy machine gun is not an armour penetrating .50 cal anti-materiel sniper rifle.
Big differences.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->HMGs IMO are as powerful as any gun should be in NS. Make a gun more powerful that that and you're making skulking that much more frustrating. (goes from impossible to super impossible) With the HMG at least you need to keep the Gaussian spread centered on a target to extract effectiveness, doing the same with flamethrowers will make it extremely glitchy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do understand that the HMG has less prerequisites and will probably cost less than the Plasmathrower, while retaining ranged capabilities, and requiring less skill to use effectively than it, right? Even though the Plasmathrower will be much more powerful at close range, the weapon's other deficits more than make up for this. In summary, the Plasmathrower is a late game, (possibly mid on a tech rush) weapon. By that time, you've got the resources to use better suited lifeforms versus it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm pretty sure these space stations are sufficiently protected from radiation found in space and from micrometeorite impacts. This means that they will be much more heavily armored than anything aliens can come up with. Grenades scale in power quite nicely to accommodate the power between the maximum needed energy to kill an alien and minimum energy required to breach the hull. Maybe we can even have actual hull breaches simulated in game when a marine shoots too close to something highly explosive, shutting the route down completely for marines. That would be a pretty cool touch. Also, how can your plasma be powerful AND have no risk of over penetration? Blasphemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plasma would take quite awhile to melt through a reinforced hull; much longer than a tank destroying munition would take to breach it. Bringing anti-tank weaponry aboard a space station when you actually intend to use it is just an inexcusably bad idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess all it boils down to is just how inaccessible this technology will be to marines during a standard game. In my opinion, it'd be much cooler if flamethrowers occupied the 4th slot and dominated all structures and infestation, but were very underpowered in combat and were more or less extremely common among marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think both Flamethrowers and Plasmathrowers should exist; the former being the marine's CQC weapon of choice for the beginning, the latter for the late game.
Meaning?
You get adv armory, and drop a flamethrower. then u get a proto, 1st thing i'd research, Plasma Containment, or simply, EM field tech, as i do, in all truth, think the welder is a plasma torch, so they have plasma, just need to research the EM field.
*Logic Ranting*
Plasma, if held at a point of the hull for like 15 seconds, would greatly deform the outer surface, but leave the hull intact, since the metal quickly hardens back, but a missile, a missile will throw the chunks across the room, leaving the hole. Plasma just melts the metal.
^i know thats confusing, if you dont get my sh**ty typing, i'll make a diagram.
AGAIN, FTLOC, STOP FU**ING TALKING ABOUT THE HMG OR ANY OTHER NEW GUN >=(
This is the what topic kids? The HMG topic? No, all you get F's, it's the "Flame Throwers..., Touching an easy issue..." topic.
only talk about the HMG as a comparative to the flamey in sense of gameplay and yady yada
Meaning?
You get adv armory, and drop a flamethrower. then u get a proto, 1st thing i'd research, Plasma Containment, or simply, EM field tech, as i do, in all truth, think the welder is a plasma torch, so they have plasma, just need to research the EM field.
*Logic Ranting*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You may be talking about the Plasmathrower as an upgrade. I am not. It is an upgrade to me only in so far as it behaves similarly to the Flamethrower, but is a superior weapon.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plasma, if held at a point of the hull for like 15 seconds, would greatly deform the outer surface, but leave the hull intact, since the metal quickly hardens back, but a missile, a missile will throw the chunks across the room, leaving the hole. Plasma just melts the metal.
^i know thats confusing, if you dont get my sh**ty typing, i'll make a diagram.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With persistence I've little doubt the Plasma would indeed cause a breach by melting through the hull. What you describe is only ever possible if the plasma is withdrawn at some point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->AGAIN, FTLOC, STOP FU**ING TALKING ABOUT THE HMG OR ANY OTHER NEW GUN >=(
This is the what topic kids? The HMG topic? No, all you get F's, it's the "Flame Throwers..., Touching an easy issue..." topic.
only talk about the HMG as a comparative to the flamey in sense of gameplay and yady yada<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't be silly. The HMG, and its properties are being referenced because it is pertinent to an ongoing argument, namely that the Plasmathrower wouldn't be skill intensive enough to make a good addition to the game. It is hypocritical and fallacious to assert this if one simultaneously believes the HMG demands enough skill to warrant inclusion.
Cpt, i know it is, but we don't need LOGIC discussion, i said unless comparative to the plasma, which is what your reason for talking about the HMG is, but half of the talk i see is logic talk for the HMG, the only logic talk in this is for the plasma/flamethrower.
You kite the marines and attack from a distance after morphing into a race better suited to kill them. Because they're slowed, and have no medium/long range capability, they are both easy targets and can't retaliate. Marines die EZ and you probably don't even take damage.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Cpt, i know it is, but we don't need LOGIC discussion, i said unless comparative to the plasma, which is what your reason for talking about the HMG is, but half of the talk i see is logic talk for the HMG, the only logic talk in this is for the plasma/flamethrower.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's necessary to draw a parallel with the HMG in order to show that the skill-based argument against the Plasmathrower lacks in merit. This is the one and only reason it is mentioned at all in this thread.
Marines aren't that hard to kill, and plasma takes just enough seconds to kill you as it does for you to Focus Swipe him. You could also gas him, acid rocket him, spit him, the list goes on.
Yea except aliens don't really have any ranged attacks minus spit and acid rocket, and I want to keep it that way.
The Plasma Throwers maybe obtainable by the Marine's technology but it would be far overpowered. To make such a weapon balanced you'd need to make the firing sequence take a few seconds to begin (3-5 seconds), drops speed even more (maybe 10% more than a flame thrower), while firing you could move but you'd only go at 50% of your maximum (which would be a snail's pace), extra upgrade needed in the Prototype laboratory to drop (50ish resources), the technology implemented in such a weapon would make it very pricey as well (25ish resources per unit), and definite friendly fire damage to Marines and Marine structures.
Such a weapon as a Plasma Thrower would heavily damage anything organic, most likely killing it just a few seconds. Even lifeforms as large as Fades and Onos would be seriously damaged fast; structures especially small ones like chambers would be destroyed very fast, the Hive would seem like it were under siege from several cannons. Fellow Marines would be seriously harmed if not killed in caught in the path one and structures would take extreme damage if exposed to the Plasma. Basically my point here is even if the technology were obtainable and were used the downsides of a Plasma Thrower would be too great. A constant stream of Plasma that is around 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit, would be so overpowered in the destruction it could unleash, would make the game very unfair and undesirable for the Alien side. That is one thing none of you are considering. The fact is if you had a portable weaponized version of a Plasma Cutter it'd be like dowsing Lightning in a constant stream onto your target. So keep that in mind before you further discuss the addition of such a weapon.
Yes, yes, but alittle editting can be put in for balance.
As well as offense chambers and toxic gas. These are enough.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Plasma Throwers maybe obtainable by the Marine's technology but it would be far overpowered. To make such a weapon balanced you'd need to make the firing sequence take a few seconds to begin (3-5 seconds), drops speed even more (maybe 10% more than a flame thrower), while firing you could move but you'd only go at 50% of your maximum (which would be a snail's pace), extra upgrade needed in the Prototype laboratory to drop (50ish resources), the technology implemented in such a weapon would make it very pricey as well (25ish resources per unit), and definite friendly fire damage to Marines and Marine structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. These changes in their totality is an overnerf. There are plenty of ways to balance the weapon; leave it to the devs to select the best through playtesting.
Offense chambers can't stop any self-respecting player. Spores can't hurt heavies and to me it sounds like the plasma stuff would be handed out in tandem with those. This gun would be the ultimate frustration for aliens with anything less than a lot of acid rocket fades, and that is a very bad thing. The marines don't even have to be skilled to use it!
Good plan, suggest a totally unneeded weapon and ask the devs to work it into the game. Don't suggest weapons just because they sound cool, tell us how they will add to the gameplay of marine vs <u>alien</u>.
Good plan, suggest a totally unneeded weapon and ask the devs to work it into the game. Don't suggest weapons just because they sound cool, tell us how they will add to the gameplay of marine vs alien.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not suggesting for a 'totally unneeded weapon'. The Plasmathrower has a viable tactical role currently unfilled; lategame close range support/capability. Acid/spit counters massed Plasmathrowers with ease (so does Xenocide, but it's best not to focus on 3 hive abilities in balance discussions), while offense towers can hold them off unless they have some means of sheltered approach. If the marines opt for Heavy armour in tandem, they're further slowed, and thus are even easier and more avoidable targets, besides this combination being ungodly expensive (meaning the aliens have even more resources to throw at them).
Secondly, deferring specific matters and forms of balance to the devs is not 'asking them to work it into the game'. It's a demonstration of the understanding that they are best equipped to come up with those sort of details.
Acid is a 3rd hive ability. Aliens have zero useful <3 hive ranged attacks. This is why NS kicks ass. Having a weapon which beats aliens close range no matter what is kind of counter-constructive to the game play. Proto-tech should be only slightly stronger than 2 hive aliens, not completely dominant.
- Hey, lets make aliens purely melee and make marines mostly ranged, and then we will also give marines the ability to consistently beat aliens in melee too.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Secondly, deferring specific matters and forms of balance to the devs is not 'asking them to work it into the game'. It's a demonstration of the understanding that they are best equipped to come up with those sort of details.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suggest how a weapon can add to the game in the form of enhanced marine vs alien mechanics, not how awesome an onos killing heat seeking nuke is.