
hope u enjoy your life



sry for broken english



MarKr wrote:Perhaps we could lower the cost for the upgrade to make their performance more matching to their cost but I don't think they should be turned into some super-effective-vs-everything weapon.
MarKr wrote:You should have seen flamethrowers several patches ago. They did very little damage to infantry and so it was common that when a squad with a flamethrower rushed enemy infantry squad, the enemy usually killed the flamethrower squad before the flames managed to kill them (especially if enemy had some SMGs). Now if infantry stands in flames, they get severe accuracy nerfs so their damage output is reduced a lot and so they need to leave the flame area or die. So it does at least something.
However I don't know if the should buff the flamethrowers against vehicles and tanks. It would mean that the weakest infantry in the game could seriously mess up the heavy tanks in the game. I can already hear all the people crying about how much BS it is and that heavy tanks are "useless".
Perhaps we could lower the cost for the upgrade to make their performance more matching to their cost but I don't think they should be turned into some super-effective-vs-everything weapon.
The New BK Champion wrote:I have never bought flamethrower neither for basic engies nor flame upgrades for SE assault pioneers or RE royal engineers. Combat efficiency of a flamethrower is close to literal 0. Not even that recent upgrade making it more useful changes anything. If you want to match it's performance and cost I'd suggest 10 ammo... even a basic grenade does more than this.
MarKr wrote:You should have seen flamethrowers several patches ago. They did very little damage to infantry and so it was common that when a squad with a flamethrower rushed enemy infantry squad, the enemy usually killed the flamethrower squad before the flames managed to kill them (especially if enemy had some SMGs). Now if infantry stands in flames, they get severe accuracy nerfs so their damage output is reduced a lot and so they need to leave the flame area or die. So it does at least something.
However I don't know if the should buff the flamethrowers against vehicles and tanks. It would mean that the weakest infantry in the game could seriously mess up the heavy tanks in the game. I can already hear all the people crying about how much BS it is and that heavy tanks are "useless".
Perhaps we could lower the cost for the upgrade to make their performance more matching to their cost but I don't think they should be turned into some super-effective-vs-everything weapon.
MarKr wrote:If the problem for infantry-carried flamethrowers is really the vulnerability of the soldiers (which is very likely since they are usually the weakest infantry available) then it could be solved by giving to the infantry some modifiers that will help them survive (I mean only when they buy the flamethrower upgrade). It could be any combination of extra HP, reduced incoming damage or harder to hit by enemy fire - it could even be applied based on the infatry that receives the upgrade - US Engineers and WM Pios (being the weakest infantry in the game) could get all three but e.g. the Stormtrooper squad could only get the "harder to hit", because they already have good HP and reduced damage they get from the "Stormtrooper training" CP unlock - giving them bonus HP, more damage reduction and on top of that also harder to hit would turn them into terminators.
Engineers and Pios are meant to be builder units and not combat infantry, this upgrade would change them to combat infantry so in return for more combat efficiency they could lose some building options (e.g. with the flamethrower upgrade they would only be able to build observation posts around resource points but nothing else). Similar could apply to CW Sappers, RE could keep build options as they are special infantry...something along that way...
Kr0noZ wrote:I disagree with the disagreement.
Flamethrowers were used primarily by pioneer / combat engineer units as they were supposed to open blocked routes and clear enemy fortifications.
Upgrading these on combat troops would therefore be weird.
Btw, even if this is russian, I have a nice picture of the equipment set given out with a flamer; Germans and western allies didn't employ the armor plates
Warhawks97 wrote:They should be a usefull tool for certain moments, not more not less. Thus if its capable of almost insta clear bunkers and emplacments, well then its fine. Nobody gave flamers in open battles and made open head-on attacks.
Warhawks97 wrote:Yes, they were used there to clear the defenses right behind the beaches and jungle areas etc. But they were squishy as well. i just dont like the concept of "here, take this weapon, now you are battlehardened."
I could imagine such things in certain docs (like RE CP unlock provides a better defensive boost, SE doc could boost its assault pios in some ways and def doc already does exactly this.
meant that the amount and strenght of the buffs would depend on the squad itself to prevent combining too many modifiers, so Def doc pios would get different buffs with the unlock there than in other docs.MarKr wrote:it could even be applied based on the infantry that receives the upgrade - US Engineers and WM Pios (being the weakest infantry in the game) could get all three but e.g. the Stormtrooper squad could only get the "harder to hit", because they already have good HP and reduced damage they get from the "Stormtrooper training" CP unlock - giving them bonus HP, more damage reduction and on top of that also harder to hit would turn them into terminators.
kwok wrote:I'm with warhawks in I don't think durability buffs is the way to go, not because it wouldn't be balanced but i feel like it'd wouldn't be intuitive and would break the feeling of the game. When people ask "why do engineers get defensive buffs when getting a flamethrower?".
Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests