Commando Archive
Thread: HAR broken? I think it's the flamer that is bugged really
Give me a friggin *edit* key arrrggghh.
Resistance to Kinetic is not immunity to acid
I meant to say: Resistance to Kinetic is not immunity to Kinetic energy.
So you think others think that the HAR is useless based soley on the fact that the Flamethrower burn kills 100% heat resist creatures? Let me tell you somthing. The HAR has horrible horrible range mods ON THE WEAPON ITSELF, as well as the accuracy mods not stacking. Combine this with the fact that our speed mod is set at +45, no more no less, and that the weapon has no Armor Piercing. I can care less if they fix the flame specials from burning creatures that are 100% resist to it. What I and other commandos want is a viable weapon to turn to "that is not a consumable" to use if the creature is resistant to heat.
I am a Master Commando and I can tell you that after every patch on the way to becoming a MC I tried out the HAR thinking that it was actually going to be fixed just so I could use it rather than being a "me too commando" running around with a flamethrower. Sadly after each update it wasn't fixed. The sole reason many commandos, obviously not you, use the flamethrower as their main weapon is to level through the trees as best they can. Why use a broken weapon that misses half the time even if they "fixed" the burning on the flamer? Just because it does acid damage and most creatures have acid vuln or a low resist to it dosn't hold water when out of so many shots you will miss 3/4ths the time. I am rather curious though as to why you think the HAR isn't all that bad. Tell me do you solo alot or do you group? That in and of itself will answer alot.
No disrespect intended to you or any of your followers disputing your posts as I know you havn't been playing commando very long.
For the HAR, it's just not worth using. Besides the obvious problems it has, no armour piercing really hurts it, and its slow special cool down and overall attack speed really depreciate a lot from this weapon. To say that the ft is too overpowered is not a stretch, but to believe that it should be reduced when we only have two other options for non-consumable weapons at our disposal is obsurd. The launcher pistol is a nice weapon, but with no special attacks to aid it in damage your are forced to the ft. The HAR is a pain to work with in pve or pvp because of the 2.5x melee damage. If the damage output of the HAR were higher, as in the case of the FT then I think it would be a more viable alternative.
So I really don't see why the concern is over the damage of the ft. There really is too much talking about how "uber" the FT is. I think the othe weapons should be brought a little higher to give us a reason to use them more often.
i really do not think the flamethrower is overpowered at all. first of all, you need to be within 16m to do any heavy damage. i don't know if you guys have seen the melee classes specials, but they can do huge amounts of damage as well. they have to be a tad bit closer than we do, but they also get to use said specials a lot faster than we do. the heavy swordsman has takenthe role of at-st killer from the commando. the powerhammer is blast damage, and they can take down one of those walking tanks faster than anything in the game. nerf them as well? i think not.
everyone was so quick to say nerf the flamethrower, its too powerful. what they failed to realize is that in order to be powerful, a certain number of circumstances had to be in place in order for us to seem all powerful. i've been kited enough times by BH's, pistoleer, even riflemen running and gunning with their horrid accuracy on the run have taken me down in pvp (yeah, he stuck a mind bleed one me). its the same as defeating any other melee class, except they can't really hit you unless they have another ranged profession to back on as they're chasing you. if you're going to just stand there blasting away at me, and let me run at you to get within 16m, you deserve to die. if you don't knock me down, burst run when i burst at you, delay my action, blind me, you will die, in one hit, IF I CONNECT WITH MY ATTACK.
Can i just point something out here. If you spray napalm or anything else onto someone and set it alight it is not the object you placed it on which is burning but the stuff you placed onto it that is. Hence if you have any material that is non-flammable (indeed is any heat is intense enough it will burn) and place a burning napalm-esque onto it then the material will burn off leaving the non-flammable obect undamaged.
Resistance is to be resistant, if something is totally resistant then it is immune or invulnerable to whatever it is said to be 100% resistant towards. If something is 99% resistant then it is not immune or invulnerable. So if your gonna come back with 'logic' to try and support your argumentplease make sure it is truthful logic.
Resistance is to be resistant, if something is totally resistant then it is immune or invulnerable to whatever it is said to be 100% resistant towards. If something is 99% resistant then it is not immune or invulnerable. So if your gargumentplease make sure it is truthful logic.onna come back with 'logic' to try and support your
yes but to be truefull there is nothing that is 100% heat resitent and a rancor would defintly not be 100% heat resitent or a atst
but were not saying that it burns the surfase we are saying that the insides get roasted
and still the fact of a can of food not melting but the food still gets cooked
You are thinking in terms of external damage.... I know of nothing that could withstand an internal burning, without it being an object made of something completly immune to any form of burns. A Rancor for example may have a shell that helps, but it would be pretty dead if all it's organs and such were the same.
Think of the FT like this:
Standard Shot: A flying ball of explosive heat, which is not easily aimed to smaller entries of the the target, and impacts upon the easier to aim at locations.
Specials: A thin stream of burning fuel, which can continue burning, much like Napalm. Because of the short range, and thin diameter of the flame, it is more easily targeted to areas which would cause damage despite a resistant shell. *Such as a spray of Napalm inside a Rancor's Mouth, or through the View Ports of an AT-ST*
We have to suspend reality a little bit for the game, but if you extend the imagination a bit, you can go beyond what the graphics show you doing.... to what may actually occur.
settle down guys. he's not trolling. he's a commando sharing his point of views. you don't like it, then don't read it. calling him a troll isn't going to solve anything. i see a lot of threads in this forum that don't really belong, or are stupid ideas, or just plain dumb. do you go around there calling all them troll? ok, well sometimes you do. fact of the matter is, he's doing exactly what this board is designed for, discussion of the profession. do you really think that with hisideas, the devs will see it and think, "oh man, this guy thinks the HAR is fine. i guess everyone likes it!" no, they won't.
tal-n, that guy's comparisson with the microwave was pretty right on. fwg5's are heat, and they don't shoot fire. do they use microwaves to generate heat? no clue. but they don't use fire to generate that heat. also, the bounty hunters use an acid pistol, and can cause a burn with their gun. not all burns have to be fire based. also, last time i checked. when i use a bleed with an fwg5 on a mob with 100% resists to heat, the bleed still sticks and damages the mobs. how was it bled in the first place if the damage used was heat? another conundrum to ponder over. and to regards to one of your earlier posts, bounty hunters have access to a lot of damage types as well, yet their bread and butter weapon (scatter pistol) is an ap1 acid type pistol, much like the dx2, only stronger and faster.
i would honestly use my HAR more often if the accuracy mods were fixed, and the speed was upped a little. i have a flamer and a HAR with the exact same speed (4.3). when i use a flamer special, i have a cool down period of 7 seconds. when i use a HAR special, its twice as long. this also shouldn't be the case. right now, it is broken. not like the old "not certified to use this weapon" broken, but it is still not working as it should, therefor, i believe that would constitute it as being broken.
Jazuhl wrote:
Tal-N wrote:
The mentality in this forum is quite shocking, even in the face of total logic people simply see a 'fix' like this as a nerf to make the FT weaker. The fact is that if you can't see that heat resistance should prevent or protect against being on fire/burning then your beyond hope.
Actually, one could quite easily make the argument that heat resistance shouldn't affect burns.
Heat is a type of energy. Burning is a chemical reaction. Burning emits heat, but they are not one and the same and can have remarkably different effects. Just because something is resistant to heat doesn't make it noncombustible.
Stick a piece of paper in the microwave and you will notice that despite the intense heat being applied, nothing happens. Set it on fire though and it is destroyed within seconds.
Now if you stick a piece of plastic in the microwave and it will melt. Try and set a piece of plastic on fire though... you can't.
In game terms:
Paper: Resistant to heat, vulnerable to burning
Plastic: Vulnerable to heat, resistant to burning
Hi Jazuhl,
I'd like to point out that your rebuttal to his point is actually inaccurate. Yes, heat is nothing more than energy, and of course energy is nothing more than mass, i.e. E = mc^2. However, your assertion that burning is a chemical reaction and therefore not always related to application of heat is misleading.
However, I would also like to state that even though I disagree with your reasoning, I do agree with your end result -- I know, I know, how Machiavellian of me.
The reason the piece of paper you place in the microwave will not burn is because the microwave uses microwaves, or very-high-frequency radio waves, to excite the particles of whatever is in there, thereby heating the objects (generally food, sometimes CDs -- ever tried that? It's fun!) and penetrating instantly. As such, the objects in the microwave are never really heated to the necessary temperature to cause them to ignite. If you put that piece of paper in the microwave for an extended period of time however, it would most definitely burst into flame, as pretty much everything that has mass is combustible -- even metal burns -- but that is an extreme reach in the case of the microwave. In other words, your specific example of a microwave is inapplicable.
What would be more applicable would be to place a piece of paper in the oven and set it to 400 degrees and watch what happens. The oven, unlike the microwave, does not work on the more sophisticated concept of "excitation" of particles -- the oven just applies heat, plain and simple. As such, conventional ovens require more time to heat things, since they do not penetrate the objects immediately and must heat from the outside inwards. Using an oven will most definitely cause that paper to burst into flame, trust me, I've burnt enough food to be sure of that.
Try as you might, unless you cause a chemical reaction, you will never cause something to burn. Burning by it's very nature is a chemical reaction -- the ignition methods are really the distinguishing factor between different burn types (chemical, heat, radioactive, etc). Take your example of a piece of plastic, such as saran wrap or perhaps a ziplock bag; you say that you can put it in the microwave and watch it melt, but try and set it on fire and you'll get nothing, it will merely melt. Fuel, or the object burning, of course plays a large role in resistance to heat (read: burning), but that's irrelevant to this paragraph (hah!).
Again, a flawed example -- just because you don't SEE flame does not mean that it's not actually burning. The reason you see it melting in the microwave is because it is in fact burning, just not with a visible flame. The same goes with acid, the reason it eats away things that it comes into contact with is because it's causing a chemical reaction that depletes whatever it touches (read: fuel).
Now, going by the logic of most everyone in this thread, a DOT reistance should not be applied because burns are independant of heat. Althought scientifically accurate in a general sense, if I follow the logic of everyone in here, it is actually untrue. Using their logic (not mine), the flamethrower causes a burn because of the heat. I would like to point out in this case that firemen wear suits that are heat-retardant/resistant up to a certain temperature, and it is this HEAT resistance that causes the suits firemen wear to not burn. In other words, for the purposes of a burn caused by direct flame, heat resistance would also mean burn resistance.
However, so far all the logic that I have seen here is flawed, as a burn from a flamethrower is not necessarily caused only by heat: flamethrowers make use of chemicals for the ignition and consumption to create the flame that you see -- in other words, the flame from a flamethrower is a chemical flame, not just a heat-induced flame, and yes, there is a difference between the two.
So in other words, if I were to listen to what people in this thread have been saying, I would agree with the original poster.
Luckily, the people that have responded in this thread are not right, and the flame from a flamethrower is not purely heat-induced, and as such, the original poster's idea is inherently flawed.
Wow, I must be seriously bored to have typed this much about basically nothing! *grin*