Tazer or Flamethrower? Vote Please.

[VaNilla]

Like I said, a tazer tazes, a flame burns, despite misunderstanding I'm sure that's a fact we can all agree on?

I was talking about mercs before that post by the way as you can see, I just mis-understood, get over it.

[Farley4Fan]

Like I said, a tazer tazes, a flame burns, despite misunderstanding I'm sure that's a fact we can all agree on?

I was talking about mercs before that post by the way as you can see, I just mis-understood, get over it.

I just don't really like it when someone bashes something they don't understand.  Now that you got it, I'm over it.   :)

And yeah, tazer tazes, flame burns.  I agree.  But what's your point?  I would like to have visual differences between spies/mercs AND between projectstealth/CT-PT.  Wouldn't you?  Same basic style, however with some of our own pizazz.  To really make it stand out.  What's wrong with that? 

[Blank Man]

whoa whoa whoa... tazer tazes, flame burns?

[Farley4Fan]

lol, i wasn't the guy that pointed out the extremely obvious. :D

[Spark Mandriller]

I sure do hope the sky is green in PS. It will be unique and interesting.

[Farley4Fan]

Stop with the fucking useless comments.  How about coming up with some good points instead beetle?  Jeez.

[Spark Mandriller]

Uh excuse me how many games have green skies? How many games have flamethrowers?

If we're gonna be unique then we should be unique. Green sky style.




What's the matter, not realistic enough for you?

[VaNilla]

whoa whoa whoa... tazer tazes, flame burns?

Yes now if you took the time (20 seconds tops) to read what came before it you would I know that I used it in this context, after Papa Roach asked us if we had any last words.

Yes, no matter how creative you are in terms of how you use it, a flame is a flame.

Point being no matter how you try and take advantage of it, nobody really wants a flame as a weapon in this game. Flames burn and we don't need things to burn in this game.

I just don't really like it when someone bashes something they don't understand.  Now that you got it, I'm over it.   :)

I had 'bashed' it before I even made the mis-understanding based on how it would be bad for mercs, I actually read your post beforehand and THEN thought you were talking about spies for some reason, I don't see what you don't like about what I said though, it's just a valid point for spies that it wouldn't work and I've already spoke about how it would be shit for mercs too. I don't like it when someone bashes somebody because they made an easy mistake, and clearly try to use that after the mistake has been acknowledged to push their position ahead.

[Farley4Fan]

No duh it would be bad for spies.  You didn't give one good reason why it would be bad for the lethal as hell mercenaries who would rather carry a tazer than a flamethrower.  A flamethrower to me just seems like it would suit the all out but tactical style that mercs have.  A tazer suits spies more, and they already have that.  Why is a flamethrower, the same exact properties as a tazer just visually different, so bad for MERCENARIES? 

I'd just like to have a reason why a burning, charring, blinding, but unique flamethrower would be worse than an everyday tazer.  Why?  Is it so hard to believe that a hired gun would have a personal flame-shooter tailored to his gun?  Remember, this isn't ARGUS anymore.  There could be any variation on the previous equipment as long as it ups the cool factor and does not mess with gameplay. 

Answer me this:
Would it be more fun to burn a spy, than to tazer him?  In my humble opinion, yes.

[Spark Mandriller]

So are you defending it 'cause you refuse to accept that anything you came up with could be bad, is that it? Are you like twelve or what?

[Ion.67]

It doesn't make sense though. A spy is on fire, suddenly passes out, which also extinguishes the flame. Hmm...

[Farley4Fan]

It doesn't make sense though. A spy is on fire, suddenly passes out, which also extinguishes the flame. Hmm...

Lack of oxygen, passes out from pain, who cares? 

Rolls on the ground for a second, extinguishes the fire, again, who cares?

It would look fine. 

Like a tazer, the flame would stun the spy before he hits the ground.  Maybe the spy would flail his arms for a bit, then hit the floor, roll, fire goes out, and the spy is down (maybe a bit of smoke rising from his body) until he can get back up. 

Beetle, I'm defending it because I think it would be a nice little difference in style between CT/PT and PS.  I've accepted that most people don't like it or are iffy about it.  I'd rather explain it a bit more because a lot of people still want to know what the animation would look like.  It's misunderstood, obviously.  You throw a flamethrower (or an extremely varied version of the flamethrower) into the discussion and people flip out because of the general idea of a flamethrower.  Which is an all out, guns a blazin, massive flames, kind of weapon, typically.  See what I'm sayin?

[Spark Mandriller]

It's misunderstood, obviously.

Ah, so you do refuse to accept that it could be bad.


Good attitude you've got there.

[Farley4Fan]

And you refuse to accept that it could be good?  A bit of hypocrisy?  Great...

And no, it could be a bad idea.  The animation could be more difficult to do, the lighting could be a bit more difficult than needed, I don't know.  If you look 2 sentences before the only sentence you bothered to read, obviously, then you'd see I accept that a lot of people don't like it.  No friggin DUH.

However it's true that a lot of people don't know what I mean by this and jump to conclusions. 

I just don't see how a little flamethrower would not fit the atmosphere.  Mercs are supposed to be these tactical, brutal, scary dudes, right?  What would scare you more?  A tazer (one that you basically already have)?  Or a flame shooting right around your asscheeks while your running for a vent?


For someone who told me to review and respond to your points you sure as hell don't do the same.  Here you go.  I've given you my reasons in this post and in the previous post.  I'd like a better response and if not then take your sarcastic 1 liners outta here bud.  Not needed.

[Spark Mandriller]

And you refuse to accept that it could be good?  A bit of hypocrisy?  Great...

NO U R


Haha I didn't realise you actually were twelve. :o