Project Stealth

Okay.  Just to clear this up.  The flamethrower attachment/gadget could be the replacement for your traditional tazer in Project Stealth.  The tazer or flamethrower would do the same exact things - just look different.  So, for some cosmetic differences between CT/PT and PS, would you like to see a flamethrower instead of a tazer?

What does the Flamethrower do?: 

Instead of the spy shaking uncontrollably when tazered, he would flail for a few seconds until the fire goes out.  Then, he'd pass out like when tazered.  The flamethrower would have the same exact range and damage as the tazer, as well as the cool down time between the flame spurts. 

Maybe for a cool effect have a bit of smoke rising from the spy's KO'd body?

To me, it just seems like a merc's style. I also think it's better to have more differences between spies/mercs.  Seems odd that both can electrocute people.  Instead, mercs burn, spies shock.  This would not take more work, just different work.

Thoughts? :)

flamethrowers are overpowered. also a tazer should be a little easier on the engine (those flame lighting effects can be a real pain in the neck, you know? xD)

QuoteThe tazer or flamethrower would do the same exact things - just look different.

It would not be overpowered. 

If there is really an issue with lighting or whatever then forget it.   :)

I remember hearing something about dynamic lighting effing with performance but I'm sure there is a way to create a flamethrower without it being performance-heavy at all.

No, for obvious reasons. There's nothing discrete about someone getting burned and flailing, so it attracts too much attention from the spies mate, and secondly it's unrealistic even for a game. If you had a flame-thrower why not burn him to death.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 22, 2008, 01:41:13 PM
No, for obvious reasons. There's nothing discrete about someone getting burned and flailing, so it attracts too much attention from the spies mate, and secondly it's unrealistic even for a game. If you had a flame-thrower why not burn him to death.

Actually, it will just look dull. Stone summarizes it all.

Either make it a weapon on its own or leave it alone, but don't make it a tazer which looks/acts like a flamethrower.

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 22, 2008, 03:37:36 AM
If there is really an issue with lighting or whatever then forget it.   :)

I remember hearing something about dynamic lighting effing with performance but I'm sure there is a way to create a flamethrower without it being performance-heavy at all.

Um... animating fire is actually pretty difficult. It has to produce light, then you'd probably want some kind of animation where the spy actually burns to death....

totally not worth the effort.

I think it's cool. Doesn't mean that it'll be in. It probably wont.

Wow... wtf is that man... it couldn't be further away from the spirit of splinter cell or make less sense... I mean how do you justify ''a flamethrower having the same effect as a tazer''

Quote from: Test-Subject on December 22, 2008, 05:41:26 PM
Wow... wtf is that man... it couldn't be further away from the spirit of splinter cell or make less sense... I mean how do you justify ''a flamethrower having the same effect as a tazer''

Exactly my thoughts.

Quote from: LennardF1989 on December 22, 2008, 07:17:17 PM

Quote from: Test-Subject on December 22, 2008, 05:41:26 PM
Wow... wtf is that man... it couldn't be further away from the spirit of splinter cell or make less sense... I mean how do you justify ''a flamethrower having the same effect as a tazer''

Exactly my thoughts.

Nope.  You guys just aren't getting it.  It's a small flamethrower only capable of shooting short spurts of flame.  Jesus. 

Lol.  Maybe it has small capsules of fuel that are loaded each flamethrower shot.  It would explain the low capability of the "flamethrower".

You guys need to get the Gears of war/call of duty/halo idea of the flamethrower out of your heads.  It's more a flame shooter.  A quick burst of flame.  It's exactly like a tazer, except fire/different animation/possible new lighting effects.  If adding a flash of light is too complicated then forget I suggested it.

I'm sure that animating electricity is equally hard anyways.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 22, 2008, 01:41:13 PM
No, for obvious reasons. There's nothing discrete about someone getting burned and flailing, so it attracts too much attention from the spies mate, and secondly it's unrealistic even for a game. If you had a flame-thrower why not burn him to death.

How/why are mercs supposed to be discreet?

And you can burn the spy to death!  Just like you can taze a spy to death.  It takes more than one shot though.  The real issue here is performance.  If the dev team could find a way to work around that then what would be the issue?  I think it would be cool.  Mercs burn, spies shock.  Fits the style.

i dont think flamethrower would make good weapon in project stealth at least for spy.



maybe it would for merc though. if you carry it then the advantage would be that you can throw a gas granade in a spy vent then ignite the vent and burn spies in it to death.


the trade off of merc having it would be that it has short range and that if you try and "disable" the bomb objective by shooting it with the flamethrower it would only blow up the bomb


what do u guys think? i think its an iintresting idea, just a little misplaced.

I'm having trouble imagining how flamethrower will do the same thing as tazer... How does fire knock you out, but keep you alive untill someone or something finish you off?

But regardless of that, I agree with david that the fire would have some visual issues. And even though I don't know anything about animating, it's obvious that fire is harder to animate because the electricity animation is the same every time... scripted, but the fire has to act naturally... not scripted.

Quote from: Blank Man on December 23, 2008, 01:43:20 AM
I'm having trouble imagining how flamethrower will do the same thing as tazer... How does fire knock you out, but keep you alive untill someone or something finish you off?

Who cares?  Spies pass out because of the pain?  Lack of oxygen?  How does electricity knock you out for a few seconds?  The game is not based on realism.  I'd take coolness over realism anyday.  :)

But regardless of that, I agree with david that the fire would have some visual issues. And even though I don't know anything about animating, it's obvious that fire is harder to animate because the electricity animation is the same every time... scripted, but the fire has to act naturally... not scripted.

The performance issue/animation "issue" is the only potential real problem that I can see.  However, the fire does not have to act naturally - and can be a scripted flame.   Don't know what you are talking about there. 

I actually spit some beer on the floor when I saw this thread...I lol-ed quite hard. Too bad April fools is in April ;)...silly Papa.

For real though...no thanks on the flamethrower, which would burn the maps down.

i don't really understand why everyone is so against this.  It's just a possible visual replacement for the tazer (for merc).

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 23, 2008, 06:24:43 AM
i don't really understand why everyone is so against this.  It's just a possible visual replacement for the tazer (for merc).

Quote from: Test-Subject on December 22, 2008, 05:41:26 PM
Wow... wtf is that man... it couldn't be further away from the spirit of splinter cell or make less sense... I mean how do you justify ''a flamethrower having the same effect as a tazer''

i dont think its good for spies but i think its good for mercs!

Of course... we always meant the Merc's Tazer. lol.

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 22, 2008, 10:48:46 PM
How/why are mercs supposed to be discreet?

And you can burn the spy to death!  Just like you can taze a spy to death.  It takes more than one shot though.  The real issue here is performance.  If the dev team could find a way to work around that then what would be the issue?  I think it would be cool.  Mercs burn, spies shock.  Fits the style.

Fire with one shot could easily kill a person, Tazer with one shot could not. A person on fire could turn it against another, a tazed person could not. Mercs are meant to be discreet if they have any sense, if I was merc and went around running shouting at the top of my voice spouting flames and jumping up and down, it's very easy for the spies to take me on. If I'm discreet and hide around places, and keep quiet, I have more chance of catching the spies and they have to be more alert. Mercs burning people really does not fit, it's not that we don't understand you, it's that you don't understand us.

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 23, 2008, 06:24:43 AM
i don't really understand why everyone is so against this.  It's just a possible visual replacement for the tazer (for merc).

It's simply because there is no need. Besides, I was joking when I brought up the FT.

Just for the sake of this discussion, but coding it won't be a problem....

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 23, 2008, 02:35:07 PMFire with one shot could easily kill a person, Tazer with one shot could not.

Actually, it could.

Not that it matters, I still voted no. Because if this and flares were put in, the Axtinguisher would be obligatory.

What's the axtinguisher? 

And how about the spy could roll on the ground a bit to get the fire to go out.  A little more animation but hey, I think it would be much cooler than the CT tazer.

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 24, 2008, 02:31:26 AM
I think it would be much cooler than the CT tazer.

idc

Blankman with the dickhole comment as usual.  Why didn't we ban this loser?

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 24, 2008, 09:12:38 AM
Blankman with the dickhole comment as usual.  Why didn't we ban this loser?

You have a serious problem with Blankman, don't you?

Stop being a 'dickhole' yourself and stay ontopic and stop trying to put up a whole community against someone.

Don't reply to this, just go on with the discussion.

Quote from: Cyntrox on December 24, 2008, 12:44:30 AM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 23, 2008, 02:35:07 PMFire with one shot could easily kill a person, Tazer with one shot could not.

Actually, it could.

I think easily was the keyword there :P.

You can have your flamethrower after I get my maid robots vs catgirl witches.


In fact actually no you can't your idea sucks too much sorry try harder next time.

I'm a little dick hole short and stout. Here is my handle here is my spout. Tip me over and pour me out.

Quote from: Blank Man on December 24, 2008, 08:56:51 PM
I'm a little dick hole short and stout. Here is my handle here is my spout. Tip me over and pour me out.

What I said to Papa Skull counts for you as well (in some way...)

"Behave" - 4 Rooms

Again, go on with the discussion.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 24, 2008, 02:28:27 PM

Quote from: Cyntrox on December 24, 2008, 12:44:30 AM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 23, 2008, 02:35:07 PMFire with one shot could easily kill a person, Tazer with one shot could not.

Actually, it could.

I think easily was the keyword there :P.

Cyntrox was talking about the tazer...   ;)

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 24, 2008, 11:28:50 PM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 24, 2008, 02:28:27 PM

Quote from: Cyntrox on December 24, 2008, 12:44:30 AM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 23, 2008, 02:35:07 PMFire with one shot could easily kill a person, Tazer with one shot could not.

Actually, it could.

I think easily was the keyword there :P.

Cyntrox was talking about the tazer...   ;)

So was I...   ;). Tazer could not easily kill someone with one shot. Notice the comma, it's part of the same sentence you see.

Come on don't get mad because people don't like your idea, it's all about constructive criticism, learn to take it, rather than telling us we're wrong.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 25, 2008, 01:33:42 PM
Come on don't get mad because people don't like your idea, it's all about constructive criticism, learn to take it, rather than telling us we're wrong.

Don't you guys learn how to give AND receive feedback at school?

If not, let me clear that up. The most simple form of giving feedback is in this order:

Name a fact
What does this fact do with you
What's your opinion about the fact
Optional: A suggestion on how to improve the thing your giving feedback on.

The most simple form of receiving feedback:
Don't counter it and say thank you. Instead, use the feedback wisely.

An example:
Fact          You're trying to make a tazer out of a flamethrower
Feeling      That doesn't suit me right, because
Opinion      how do you justify a flamethrower having the same effect as a tazer, it's not understandable.
Suggestion Try to resummarize your idea.

This way, critics (feedback is a nicer word, because it can be positive as well) are constructive and will be understandable for the one taking it (Papa Skull). If it's understandable, there can be done somethig about it (resummarize the idea).

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 24, 2008, 02:31:26 AM
What's the axtinguisher? 

http://steamgames.com/tf2/pyro/

Quote from: LennardF1989 on December 25, 2008, 03:32:15 PM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 25, 2008, 01:33:42 PM
Come on don't get mad because people don't like your idea, it's all about constructive criticism, learn to take it, rather than telling us we're wrong.

Don't you guys learn how to give AND receive feedback at school?

I wasn't taking criticism, he made a mistake. I was also referring to the situation, based on responses I have received in other threads too, so I don't really think what your saying applies here.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 25, 2008, 01:33:42 PM

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 24, 2008, 11:28:50 PM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 24, 2008, 02:28:27 PM

Quote from: Cyntrox on December 24, 2008, 12:44:30 AM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 23, 2008, 02:35:07 PMFire with one shot could easily kill a person, Tazer with one shot could not.

Actually, it could.

I think easily was the keyword there :P.

Cyntrox was talking about the tazer...   ;)

So was I...   ;). Tazer could not easily kill someone with one shot. Notice the comma, it's part of the same sentence you see.

Come on don't get mad because people don't like your idea, it's all about constructive criticism, learn to take it, rather than telling us we're wrong.

It takes 2 shots anyways.  ;)

And good lord, I think people that have concerns about the realism of the flame-shooter need to play the game a few times a day.  CT was about as unrealistic as a game can get.  Who cares if flame can't easily kill someone or make them pass out? 

I'll walk you all through this.  If it still doesn't even sound merc-esque then I'll drop the idea.

Merc flames spy. (lol)
Spy flails arms while standing
Spy rolls on ground for 1 sec
fire goes out
spy passes out
spy gets up or merc burn spy to death with another flame burst

It's realistic enough to believable in a game.  Honestly.  Does the same exact thing as the tazer, except the short rolling on ground thing (which can easily not be put in), would look cooler (imho), and gives another visual difference between the merc and spy (which are key in a game with such unique teams).

a funny litte drawing to show the odd coincedence of both the merc and spy having tazers.
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2F2u5z0a0.jpg&hash=32787eb83cb96c554a76391ff114f5b6ba789be2)

Map would need to burn with a flamethrower, which sounds plain ridiculous for this type of game. The idea you pose is, no offense, retarded.

I want to slap you with my glove across the face.

And there's blank man.  Again.  Wtf. 

Lennard, don't target me next time you try to change someone's attitude. 

Westfall:  No, the maps woulds not need to burn.  Think of any other game with a flamethrower-esque weapon, except far cry 2.  Do they burn the maps?  No.  Other than the little black smear they leave behind, no.

QuoteThe idea you pose is, no offense, retarded.

None taken, just your opinion.  But honestly you have no point, whatsoever -about the maps.

Papa whatever you do, it may seem like a good idea, and it is - it's also creative, but in the context of this game... I think your going to have to accept that nobody likes the idea, for the many reasons already given.

Actually PapaSkull, most games with flamethrowers have higher interaction with the enviroment than just the black scorches, normally items like creates or grass will burn at the very least. Flamethrowers are enviroomental weapons after all, the whole point it really to burn people out of grass etc, not just to hit them directly.

Also, I agree the whole idea of the flamethrower seems much more primitive than technological - as PS should be.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 27, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
Papa whatever you do, it may seem like a good idea, and it is - it's also creative, but in the context of this game... I think your going to have to accept that nobody likes the idea, for the many reasons already given.

This is kind of what I was getting at...hence the limited input because flamethrower seems like such an outcast for this game.

And seriously if you're going to implement a flamethrower, which is still ridiculous, the maps better burn.

In theory we can make the maps burn...

I'm not going to take a side on this, but I think that to have a flamethrower equal the effect of a tazer, you would have to have some sort of animation that the spy would go through that the spy himself would have no control over and then immediately pass out like the tazer would allow him to do. In terms of animation, a tazer would be shorter and simpler.
In response to the pictoral example, I'm pretty sure a merc in that position would skip the tazer altogether and just blast the hell out of that spy...
Another thing about the flamethrower is that it would have to be a lot more interactive with the map, like setting blackmarks or even burning through certain textures, which would run up to so many instances it would probably be very difficult to write them all.
I don't really have any knowledge about scripting, but that's what I think it would take...

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 27, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
Papa whatever you do, it may seem like a good idea, and it is - it's also creative, but in the context of this game... I think your going to have to accept that nobody likes the idea, for the many reasons already given.

i agree.  I still fail to see a lot of those 'reasons' but everyone's got their opinion and I'll accept that.  lol, and you can't say nobody likes it. someone voted for flamethrower!!!  ;D

Tidenburg, halo, gears of war, none of the maps burn.  How about call of duty?  Haven't played that one yet.  The only game in recent memory that had a flamethrower that had a severe effect on the environment was far cry 2 - and as far as I know it was a revolution for fire in games.  I would have no problem with nothing on the map burning.  A little black smear would look fine and even that's not needed.

I don't remember a flame-thrower in Gears? Halo's flamethrower left flames on the floor and Call of Duty has the full blown interaction like Far Cry.

:REMEMBERED GEARS:
It left flames like in halo and people could get burnt by flaming corpses.

I voted for flamethrower.

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 27, 2008, 06:29:19 AM
Lennard, don't target me next time you try to change someone's attitude. 

I actually named you because that's my feedback to you... I could repeat it now, but I'm a lazy (like most programmers, hehe).

Quote from: Tidenburg on December 28, 2008, 01:29:09 AM
I don't remember a flame-thrower in Gears? Halo's flamethrower left flames on the floor and Call of Duty has the full blown interaction like Far Cry.

:REMEMBERED GEARS:
It left flames like in halo and people could get burnt by flaming corpses.

Sorry.  It's in gears of war 2 - should have made that a little clearer.  Sure, there were some burning effects by the flamethrower but it was a full-blown massive flame thrower, lol.  I'm suggesting a short flame burst.  It does not need to burn anything accept people. 

But think about it really, why would anyone ever make a flamethrower with _that_ small a canister per shot? It's completely nonsensical and unless the credit crunch is hitting the Mercs hard then there would be no explanation for it.

As we learnt with SC:Convictions, you shouldn't fix what ain't broken. ;)

Quote from: Tidenburg on December 28, 2008, 03:15:32 PM
But think about it really, why would anyone ever make a flamethrower with _that_ small a canister per shot?

So security guards can use it to knock out intruders!



This idea sucks stop talking about it already fuck.

How about spreading some cam-gas  in the spies face to let them taste their own stuff? :P

Huh?

Quote from: Tidenburg on December 28, 2008, 03:15:32 PM
But think about it really, why would anyone ever make a flamethrower with _that_ small a canister per shot? It's completely nonsensical and unless the credit crunch is hitting the Mercs hard then there would be no explanation for it.

As we learnt with SC:Convictions, you shouldn't fix what ain't broken. ;)

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that people are stuck too far up in realism.  Still.  Even after all the talking we all did about 'who cares about realism?' I still see people going "well is this 100% plausible in our world?"  Probably not completely, but it's a friggin game and people STILL (emphasis on the surprised still) want to copy reality.  Soooo lame. 

You're grasping at straws for any defence you can find for this idea now aren't you? To be frank, I don't give two shits about realism. If the game's fun then that's all that matters, but how would you feel if I said we should change the Mercs gun for a water pistol but it shoots water in small canisters which are so compressed it does exactly the same as a normal gun. Your first arguments would be:

-It's an unnecasary change, which actually changes nothing.
-It's an unpheasable replacement for an already pheasable item.
-It doesn't fit with PS's atmosphere.

Just drop it already.

Quote from: Tidenburg on December 29, 2008, 11:37:39 PM
You're grasping at straws for any defence you can find for this idea now aren't you? To be frank, I don't give two shits about realism. If the game's fun then that's all that matters, but how would you feel if I said we should change the Mercs gun for a water pistol but it shoots water in small canisters which are so compressed it does exactly the same as a normal gun. Your first arguments would be:

-It's an unnecasary change, which actually changes nothing.
-It's an unpheasable replacement for an already pheasable item.
-It doesn't fit with PS's atmosphere.

Just drop it already.

QFE

Although, a bit of realism isn't wrong. Probably the whole community would go crazy if we make both the spy and merc superhumans which can jump unrealistic heights and move around with the speed of light.

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 29, 2008, 10:06:49 PM
If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that people are stuck too far up in realism.

Sacrificing realism for a reason is one thing. Sacrificing realism to implement a retarded idea when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative available? That's just dumb.

Making spies able to instantly heal off any wounds by using a healthbox isn't particularly realistic, but it makes the game better, so it's okay.
Making the sky green, just because, is stupid. It doesn't add anything other than stupidity. It's not okay.

Now tell me, does your idea add anything other than stupidity? Please tell me if it does!




Also, I've got to ask, why are you defending your idea so persistently even though it's obvious that nobody likes it? Do you see people rejecting it as rejecting you? Are you desperate to contribute something to the game, no matter what? Why is it so important to you?

You are being a little hypocratic IMO. You always have been very defensive towards new gadgets/weapons (as in, "no one likes it, so stop defending it"), why are you doing exactly the same thing now?

Quote from: LennardF1989 on December 30, 2008, 05:24:41 PM
hypocratic

Like doctors!

Excuse my spelling...

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 28, 2008, 01:06:13 AM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 27, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
Papa whatever you do, it may seem like a good idea, and it is - it's also creative, but in the context of this game... I think your going to have to accept that nobody likes the idea, for the many reasons already given.

i agree.  I still fail to see a lot of those 'reasons' but everyone's got their opinion and I'll accept that.  lol, and you can't say nobody likes it. someone voted for flamethrower!!!  ;D

Tidenburg, halo, gears of war, none of the maps burn.  How about call of duty?  Haven't played that one yet.  The only game in recent memory that had a flamethrower that had a severe effect on the environment was far cry 2 - and as far as I know it was a revolution for fire in games.  I would have no problem with nothing on the map burning.  A little black smear would look fine and even that's not needed.

Obviously this post went over your heads (lennard, hyper, whoever).  I've accepted that most people don't like the idea.  I do feel that this idea was very misunderstood right from the get go, though.  Some people even thought I meant it was for spies.  That's the reason I decided to explain the "flamethrower" even further.  I just think that it's important for Project Stealth to have some visual differences from CT to really make it its own game.  I understand that the primary goal is to clone CT, but I don't see where a little bit of differences in style can hurt anything. 

I say, clone CT gameplay to almost a T.  Then, if possible, up the coolness factor, give it a bit more flavor.  Realism aside, a semi-flamethrower for mercs could be one of the most pleasing ways to kill in the game.  Wouldn't it be more fun to burn spies than to shock them - which you already do to mercs all the time I might add?

I understand the community here.  Flamethrowers are usually gimmicks and shouldn't belong in a game like this, right?  I think the problem is that flamethrowers when mentioned are envisioned as these massive tubes spraying blazes all around.  This one is unique.  Compact.  Semi-lethal.  Like a tazer.  It's just the unique idea of it (this kind of flamethrower) that got me to bring it up in a serious manner.

Any last words before this thread goes down the poop-chute?

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

Oh, so no flames. Flames are bad in a game with guns/explosives.  Come on.

Can you really not see how security guards using a flamethrower on intruders is stupid?

Mercs = Security Guards?

lol  :D

And still, stuck in the realism.

Let's face it: This game is supposed to be Sci-Fi realistic. Not whatever.

And yes, mercs are security guards

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 04, 2009, 02:58:09 AM
Mercs = Security Guards?

lol  :D

And still, stuck in the realism.

Yeah silly me I don't approve of games being idiotic for no reason how silly of me.


How about you stop ignoring my questions and start giving me some answers, boss?

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 04, 2009, 12:52:03 AM
Oh, so no flames. Flames are bad in a game with guns/explosives.  Come on.

Flames are bad as a weapon for a team which is non lethal except for jumping on mercs and necking them, and using the mercs weapons against them, and maybe things on the map, yes I agree.

Now, I know it's not MEANT to be lethal for what you want but in an amount of flames that makes it worth using the tool, it really is. A tazer tazes, a flame burns.

Uh??

He's always meant it as a replacement for the MERC <----------- 's tazer-gadget. You know, the thing that was way overpowered in Pandora Tomorrow.

Of course the Spies wont get a flamethrower... d'oh!

Geez, talkin' 'bout some major misunderstandings here. lolz

Y3h fl4m3s w00.

4nd spiez hav fire cum frm theyr sticki camz? to burn teh merc!?

U guys liek my awesum idea?

I can't believe this just keeps going on.

Unless someone can actually argue why the flamethrower needs to replace tazer this thread is pointless.

Different visuals. Stands out more from CT/PT.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 04, 2009, 01:14:16 PM

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 04, 2009, 12:52:03 AM
Oh, so no flames. Flames are bad in a game with guns/explosives.  Come on.

Flames are bad as a weapon for a team which is non lethal except for jumping on mercs and necking them, and using the mercs weapons against them, and maybe things on the map, yes I agree.

Now, I know it's not MEANT to be lethal for what you want but in an amount of flames that makes it worth using the tool, it really is. A tazer tazes, a flame burns.

OMFG!

FOR MERCS!!!!

I thought I cleared that up like 3 times now!

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 05, 2009, 04:57:19 AM

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 04, 2009, 01:14:16 PM

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 04, 2009, 12:52:03 AM
Oh, so no flames. Flames are bad in a game with guns/explosives.  Come on.

Flames are bad as a weapon for a team which is non lethal except for jumping on mercs and necking them, and using the mercs weapons against them, and maybe things on the map, yes I agree.

Now, I know it's not MEANT to be lethal for what you want but in an amount of flames that makes it worth using the tool, it really is. A tazer tazes, a flame burns.

OMFG!

FOR MERCS!!!!

I thought I cleared that up like 3 times now!

LOL LMAO

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.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 05, 2009, 07:57:53 PM
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? 

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

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

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

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

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?

Quote from: Blank Man on January 06, 2009, 02:26:54 AM
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.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 03, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
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.

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 05, 2009, 08:31:45 PM
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.

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.

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?

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

Quote from: Ion.67 on January 07, 2009, 12:10:31 AM
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?

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 07, 2009, 01:24:52 AM
It's misunderstood, obviously.

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


Good attitude you've got there.

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.

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 07, 2009, 03:41:10 AM
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

I went on to explain that I did accept the idea was not liked and that it may not be a great idea.  Again, all I was doing was pointing out that you are a hypocrite.  Stop acting like a douche.

And wtf is wrong with you?  Ignoring my post and focusing on meaningless things just so you can keep this pointless flame war going??  And I'm 12?  lol

If you accept that it wasn't a good idea then why have you gone on for seven pages defending it?

Oh right because you can't accept that it's anything but a great idea. The only problems you can see are that it might be difficult to implement.

I likey him  :)

Right okay lets stop reasoning here and make this a bit more simple for you, your idea would look like shit, and really doesn't fit the kind of style people WANT to have on Project Stealth, accept it, I don't know why you keep defending this idea, it sucks to be frank and there's whole 7 pages about why we think so, don't you understand that?

By the way I really did reasons about why it would be bad for 'the lethal as hell mercenaries who would rather carry a tazer than a flamethrower'. I think anyone with some slight intelligence can work out a flamethrower is in a different league to a tazer. Tell me why your 'lethal as hell mercs' would take a flamethrower that they can't use effectively and does the same as a tazer does anyway.

I assume you made the poll to find out whether people wanted to include your idea, by a ratio of 8:1, we don't.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 07, 2009, 02:00:24 PM
Right okay lets stop reasoning here and make this a bit more simple for you, your idea would look like shit, and really doesn't fit the kind of style people WANT to have on Project Stealth, accept it, I don't know why you keep defending this idea, it sucks to be frank and there's whole 7 pages about why we think so, don't you understand that?

By the way I really did reasons about why it would be bad for 'the lethal as hell mercenaries who would rather carry a tazer than a flamethrower'. I think anyone with some slight intelligence can work out a flamethrower is in a different league to a tazer. Tell me why your 'lethal as hell mercs' would take a flamethrower that they can't use effectively and does the same as a tazer does anyway.

I assume you made the poll to find out whether people wanted to include your idea, by a ratio of 8:1, we don't.

even tho im for the tazer i will say this, merc's arent supposed to have concealed weapons, they are a matter of brute force, that spies should fear.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 07, 2009, 02:00:24 PM
Right okay lets stop reasoning here and make this a bit more simple for you, your idea would look like shit, and really doesn't fit the kind of style people WANT to have on Project Stealth, accept it, I don't know why you keep defending this idea, it sucks to be frank and there's whole 7 pages about why we think so, don't you understand that?

By the way I really did reasons about why it would be bad for 'the lethal as hell mercenaries who would rather carry a tazer than a flamethrower'. I think anyone with some slight intelligence can work out a flamethrower is in a different league to a tazer. Tell me why your 'lethal as hell mercs' would take a flamethrower that they can't use effectively and does the same as a tazer does anyway.

I assume you made the poll to find out whether people wanted to include your idea, by a ratio of 8:1, we don't.

Reasoning?  You think that the last couple pages you've all been reasoning?  On the contrary, all I've gotten (mostly) are a bunch of one liners that don't do anything except show the inability to have a discussion.

Fucking joke.

No.  And I should rephrase.  The style doesn't change with a flamethrower.  It's just a visual difference.  The style can be the same.  Why would it look like shit?  It's not like I'M the one doing the animations and fire effects.  If those 2 things are impossible to do without looking bad, which they aren't, then screw this idea.  But why is it so friggin hard to imagine this?  Why does a flamethrower not fit MERCENARIES who come from an anonymous group of hired guns?  Is it really not plausible?  Sheesh.  Open your minds.  This little flamethrower gives more contrast between mercs and spies.  The little flamethrower gives more contrast between Chaos Theory and Project Stealth.  If Ubisoft continued to do SvM and replaced a dinky tazer with a bit more intimdating gadget (flamethrower) would you honestly be against it? 

I know the SvM atmosphere.  I know what it's like.  I've been playing in it for years.  It's really not that hard to imagine a narrow quick flame shooting from the merc's gun.  It's about as easy to imagine a bolt of lightning (current) erupting from it.  Or even a bit easier to imagine than a spy killing a merc by jumping on his head like mario.  My point is that the flamethrower I'm proposing (shouldn't even call it that) is much more believable than a lot of things in the game. 

For the record I'm not going to continue to argue for this for long.  It's useless, I know.  I am just starting to feel that people are thinking that this IS going to be Chaos Theory.  Even a slight and plausible VISUAL change for the mercs equipment is not welcome.  I haven't even gotten a reason WHY it would not fit, just countless complaints that it WOULD NOT fit.  How?  Friggin mystery.  Explain your case, don't just state your case.  This is how a discussion works.  We argue eachothers points.  That's impossible to do if I only get a bag full of opinions, right?  It's arguing opinion with opinion not points with points.  A circle.

Quote from: Blank Man on January 07, 2009, 04:53:34 AM
I likey him  :)

I honestly thought you were him for a second there. ;)

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 07, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
I haven't even gotten a reason WHY it would not fit, just countless complaints that it WOULD NOT fit.

No, that's just you pretending that the complaints don't exist.

Valid complaints:

1. The flamethrower wouldn't act like a flamethrower, it would act like a tazer. Since when have flamethrowers knocked people out?
2. Maps wouldn't burn. Last time I checked, fire burned things. Except your fire. Just because.
3. Security guards carrying flamethrowers is stupid. Wall mines are pushing it, but at least they could stop intruders. Flamethrowers? Useful, because the guards frequently need to run right up to people and set them on fire? What?


Your only response to these points has been to claim that games are games and therefore unrealistic, which isn't a counterargument at all. Stop dreaming that the world is different just because you love your idea too much to let it go.

Quote from: HYPER STAG BEETLE on January 08, 2009, 03:02:31 AM

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 07, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
I haven't even gotten a reason WHY it would not fit, just countless complaints that it WOULD NOT fit.

No, that's just you pretending that the complaints don't exist.

Valid complaints:

1. The flamethrower wouldn't act like a flamethrower, it would act like a tazer. Since when have flamethrowers knocked people out?
Ugh.  Realism.  Since when has elbowing someone in the shoulder, jumping on someone's head, or anything of the like knocked people out?  Just for the sake of realism, it could be explained like this:  The pain of being burned alive causes the spy to be knocked out after he puts the fire out.  People can pass out from pain or shock.  Happy now? 
2. Maps wouldn't burn. Last time I checked, fire burned things. Except your fire. Just because.
Who said maps wouldn't burn a little bit?  I don't remember anyone complaining about the LACK OF REALISM in games like GOW2 or halo when the maps didn't burn to a crisp everytime you set a flame to them.  Jeez.  It's already been said that it would be possible to make maps burn.  Not burn like burn the map down burn.  No, like a small ash mark and maybe a bit of tiny flames would dance around it.  Who cares?  This is a terrible argument, if you can even call it one.
3. Security guards carrying flamethrowers is stupid. Wall mines are pushing it, but at least they could stop intruders. Flamethrowers? Useful, because the guards frequently need to run right up to people and set them on fire? What?
So, why dont' you apply that same friggin logic to the tazer?  Dee dee dee....  Like the guards need to frequently run up to people and jolt them with electricity?  Terrible argument, again.  Wall mines are pushing it?  WHAT?  I've never heard of anyone complaining about the realism of wall mines.  Mainly because no one cares.  Period.  That's a flaw in your imagination.  This is not a sim.

And what's with the security guard crap?  They are a group of hired guns from a currently anonymous mercenary group.  Who's to say they don't like burnin bitches to a crisp?  They can be anything.  They shouldn't be cigar smokin' beer bellied hilly billies or robotic, but something in between.  That's a pretty big range.  And if a little type of flamethrow doesn't fit in there somewhere I don't know where to put it.

Notice how everything so far is different visually?  Just trying to suggest an alternative visual for the tazer weapon.


Your only response to these points has been to claim that games are games and therefore unrealistic, which isn't a counterargument at all. Stop dreaming that the world is different just because you love your idea too much to let it go.
What points?  Oh, you mean the bitchin and moanin about realistic crap?  Your biggest flaw is your imagination which for some reason doesn't let you imagine a random group of HIRED GUNS who carry flamethrowers (which are far different from your traditional flamethrower).  Yet you'll accept all the bogus in this game that would never ever be plausible.  Spies don't bring at least a knife or pistol to a mission with heavily armed mercenaries?  But then you'll say, "but that's their mission".  What if I say, "the mercenaries like to watch their enemies burn."?  The point is, the game is filled with things you'd look at and see that it would never happen.  Flamethrower possibly being one of them.  But who cares?  IT'S A G-A-M-E...

I'm done explaining it to you.  I do appreciate you posting in a more mature manner though.  Sorry for not returning the favor (maybe) in this last post.  :P

If we don't reach some kind of common ground in these next couple posts between us then I say we put it all behind us, I lock the thread, and we just get along for the rest of our discussions.   :)

This game should have power swords. They're totally cool in Warhammer 40000 and they'd be totally cool here. Guards could like swords so they'd be suitable for this game.

Lightsaber-like swords have been considered, but the framerate was too low when you removed certain walls that were necessary for the structural support of the building. Building collapses eat FPS.

It's alright, you couldn't destroy the walls in Jedi Academy either. Nobody complained about it there, so obviously it's fine to copy for PS.

On further thought, though, a power sword might be too deadly. Oh well, we can just make it knock people out when it hits them. It's alright, realism sucks anyway.

this topic is still stupidly progressing. Papa, while the idea is interesting, it is still stupid, not classifiable in this game, and idiotically thought. What part of "doesn't fit the playstyle" do you not get? Maybe we should tell you it's awesome and PM the devs the exact opposite, because it's stupid.

Sorry man, but it's not worth it.

Papa, why do you think you get one liners. People had started off trying to explain but as soon as you start ignoring our points that generally goes out the window. Reasoning, I've tried with you. You don't seem to be able to accept valid points.

Let's review that shall we.  I JUST gave a valid response to Beetle.  What did I get?  A fucking one liner.  Why do I think I get nothing in return?  Because I don't.  Please.  Show me your points, stone.  I'm sure you and I would be able to have a better conversation than this new guy, hyper stag beetle. 

If you don't want to, I understand.  This thread needs to stop especially if everyone refuses to have a conversation.

I think I don't understand why you guys say it doesn't fit the playstyle.  Obviously.  It would be much appreciated if you would tell me HOW it doesn't.  Again, you can't just argue with opinions back in forth.  It's a circle.

This topic should get an award for being the most stupidest topic in Ps forum.

FLAMETHROWER doesn't taz people come on , it burns them and fire kills .

Its the same as i would ask ' I got a wonderful idea , lets give mercs rocket launchers and make them shoot bullets !!!!YEAH THAT WOULD BE SUPER AWESOME AHAHAHAA!!!! '

But obviously flamethrower is more awesome than a rocket launcher so it should be added to the game.....................................N-O-T!.

Reasons why it shouldn't be added .

1) It is the pinnacle of stupidity.
2) It doesn't suit the play style of this game . Tazer should be used to taz people and knock them out but fire knocking someone out is VERY stupid. Tazer knocking out people is like 9/10 on realistic scale but flame knocking out someone is like 1/10 on that scale.
3) Most people don't like the idea . So why should it be Minority > Majority ?
4) It is not realistic . The game has some unrealistic things BUT it tries to still stick to being at the least A BIT realistic . Come on if we discard realism , lets give spies light sabers and laser guns , but okay they won't kill . Lets turn spies into Terminators and make them drop screws and bolts when they get shot.
5) Arguing for the sake of arguing is fun but it has a limit . What the fuck ? 7 pages of nonsense is overboard.

Yup.  First impression of Flamethrower = OMGflaminzweapon FROM HELL!!!!1

At least try to read my explanation of how it would friggin work first. 

I'm done.  My analysis of the thread.  About half the people against it actually had good reason or just preferred to have a tazer instead - I can definitely respect that, sure.  The other half either didn't get it, or have NO imagination at all.  So little of an imagination that they should be picketing the game CT itself for defying realism in every manner. 

I disagree with the "lets keep this game as real as possible", but I still don't really like this idea.
weeeeeeeeeeee

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 08, 2009, 09:24:06 PM
I JUST gave a valid response to Beetle.

No you didn't. You gave a bunch of arguments ranging from nonsensical (Fire could knock people out!) to irrelevant (Flamethrowers work like this in a completely different game!). If your arguments are generic enough that I can apply every single one to the case for adding a fucking WH40K weapon, then you need some more fucking arguments. Ones which make sense, please.


Also uh new guy? I mean I know it doesn't matter but I took a look and I registered here before you, so...

You've never heard of people passing out from pain?  Or from shock?  Or from lack of oxygen?  People pass out in burning buildings sometimes.  Is this not a REAL enough explanation for you?  Damn pathetic to be honest.  My point about flamethrowers in other games was that a flamethrower doesn't have to burn the house down to be REAL ENOUGH.  NO ONE BITCHES ABOUT REALISM, EXCEPT YOU.  Be proud, oh so proud.  Friggin stickler - love that word.

Drop it.  You look foolish.  I'm dropping it now as well because I look foolish trying to defend the idea that no one likes/gets/understands/will accept because it's not real enough, etc.... 

Why do you even play games dude?

I think this topic needs a lock, I already lost the whole point about this topic like 6 pages back, sorry.

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 09, 2009, 07:11:09 AM
I'm dropping it now as well because I look foolish trying to defend the idea that no one likes/gets/understands/will accept because it's not real enough, etc.... 

Try harder next time, maybe you'll come up with something good. Or, well, something not terrible.

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 09, 2009, 07:11:09 AM
You've never heard of people passing out from pain?  Or from shock?  Or from lack of oxygen?  People pass out in burning buildings sometimes.  Is this not a REAL enough explanation for you?  Damn pathetic to be honest.  My point about flamethrowers in other games was that a flamethrower doesn't have to burn the house down to be REAL ENOUGH.  NO ONE BITCHES ABOUT REALISM, EXCEPT YOU.  Be proud, oh so proud.  Friggin stickler - love that word.

Drop it.  You look foolish.  I'm dropping it now as well because I look foolish trying to defend the idea that no one likes/gets/understands/will accept because it's not real enough, etc.... 

Why do you even play games dude?

save it for the tourny , don't prey on drunks .

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 22, 2008, 01:41:13 PM
No, for obvious reasons. There's nothing discrete about someone getting burned and flailing, so it attracts too much attention from the spies mate, and secondly it's unrealistic even for a game. If you had a flame-thrower why not burn him to death.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on December 23, 2008, 02:35:07 PM

Quote from: Papa Skull on December 22, 2008, 10:48:46 PM
How/why are mercs supposed to be discreet?

And you can burn the spy to death!  Just like you can taze a spy to death.  It takes more than one shot though.  The real issue here is performance.  If the dev team could find a way to work around that then what would be the issue?  I think it would be cool.  Mercs burn, spies shock.  Fits the style.

Fire with one shot could easily kill a person, Tazer with one shot could not. A person on fire could turn it against another, a tazed person could not. Mercs are meant to be discreet if they have any sense, if I was merc and went around running shouting at the top of my voice spouting flames and jumping up and down, it's very easy for the spies to take me on. If I'm discreet and hide around places, and keep quiet, I have more chance of catching the spies and they have to be more alert. Mercs burning people really does not fit, it's not that we don't understand you, it's that you don't understand us.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 03, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Yes, no matter how creative you are in terms of how you use it, a flame is a flame.

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 06, 2009, 08:35:12 PM
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.

The rest of the stuff I posted isn't really relevant to actual points about the flamethrower, more about your arguments, but this says enough as far as I am concerned. Now to the contrary of what you said here:

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 08, 2009, 09:24:06 PM
Let's review that shall we.  I JUST gave a valid response to Beetle.  What did I get?  A fucking one liner.  Why do I think I get nothing in return?  Because I don't.  Please.  Show me your points, stone.  I'm sure you and I would be able to have a better conversation than this new guy, hyper stag beetle. 

If you don't want to, I understand.  This thread needs to stop especially if everyone refuses to have a conversation.

I think I don't understand why you guys say it doesn't fit the playstyle.  Obviously.  It would be much appreciated if you would tell me HOW it doesn't.  Again, you can't just argue with opinions back in forth.  It's a circle.

I actually did say my reasons for thinking the flamethrower sucks, and if I quoted most of the posts in this topic I would be able to give you more too.

Is this a joke? This isnt Unreal Tournament 3, its Splinter Cell AKA Project Stealth lol.

Quote from: MrSneaky08 on January 10, 2009, 04:13:36 AM
Is this a joke? This isnt Unreal Tournament 3, its Splinter Cell AKA Project Stealth lol.

I would like to emphasize we are NOT Splinter Cell nor are we cloning PT/CT/DA... We are Project Stealth and we have no relation to Ubisoft whatsoever. Only thing in common is that we both happen to make a Stealth Multiplayer game.

With such outstanding ideas by the peanut gallery, PS will be GOTY for sure!  ::)

Actually while we are throwing crazy ideas out there how about we give me merc a heat seeking rocket launcher, this way the spies wouldnt even be able to get in the door without dying.

Nonono, we give them a rocket launcher, but it only LOOKS like a rocket launcher. It will behave just like the uzi in-game.

Or we could give all of the mercs wife beaters, but in reality they would just be wearing gay ass Hollister clothes.

Have you forgotten that Spies had rocket launchers*?

(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.projectstealthgame.com%2Fwebimages%2Faf2008%2Fspyrocket1_low.png&hash=3cb0fc01bd25e7bc49b96d65857cfcfd0df7786c)

* = only on April's Fools day tho.

You guys are just being fucking ridiculous.  Flamethrower for a random group of mercs, compared to friggin rocket launchers for spies.  Where's the logic?  There is none.  Stop posting in the thread.

I said rocket launchers for mercs, nub. It'll look awesome-o, but it'll behave just like the uzi so it'll be balanced. It makes perfect sense, right along with flamethrowers that act like tazers and wife beaters that act like kevlar.

You see the rocket launcher though, it has a close range distance of 1 meter, to balance out the teams a bit. It's a bit like a tazer really, only they're rockets. I mean c'mon we aren't being realistic here, I don't see your problem it's basically the same as a tazer only they have a blowing up animation! Get some style guys sheesh...

I mean if you don't like this because it's not realistic, WHY DO YOU EVEN PLAY GAMES DUDE? Look back to Papa Skulls last post rofl.

I don't know what's worse: the fact that someone thought this was a good idea, or that it has resulted in 9 pages arguing about it.

Most of the pages have been a result of a fact that people don't take this seriously (thankfully), so I'd say the fact someone thought it's a good idea and tried forcing it.

Hmmm, well stop contributing to make this thread go on longer, genius.  Stop posting in the thread.  It's over.

or is it...I say lets make another thread commemorating the death of this thread.

Well it's obviously not dead yet.

"Why has this thread gone on for so long?"  "Why is this not closed yet?"  "Why is it 9 pages"  Bla freakin bla.  Just stop posting.

Oh we can't just let it die some people have serious questions in this topic :P. I was merely replying.

bump for giggles.

Double funny.

PAPA GOT PWNED. Hahaha. It's alright. We could make you a blow up doll to make you feel better. It will act just like a real girl!

At 9 pages, it's in competition for longest thread on the forums. Can't let it die now.

Ion, I think you meant making a female shaped blowup doll that acts like a real boy.

Pretty sure I had some 13/14 pagers way back.  They'll never be beaten.

You're real fuckin funny there spek.   You're analogies were way out there, surprised anyone bought em, regardless of the general opinion of the flamethrower. 

DOWN WITH IMAGINATION!  DOWN WITH ANYTHING DIFFERENT!  SCREW IT I SAY!  CALL IT CT!!!  I'm all for tazers that act like lightning bolts, smoke grenades that act like gelatin, and spies that can kill mercenaries like they one of the Mario brothers!  But flamethrowers (for a random group of hired guns) that can temporarily paralyze a spy through pain, lack of oxygen, or shock?  HELL NO!  NOT PLAUSIBLE!!!!!11!1111

You give the ridiculous jokes trying to ridicule my viewpoint, I'll GLADLY give a few of my own.  Such assholes.

Looks like we have a mad one on our hands. Get out the lube

So anyway more importantly here is Solid Snake as a strike witch.

(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F2901%2F1219423614712bo7.jpg&hash=51de2ba9f6ddf72abfdd1bd359ca1eb193319ce9)


Yeah.

lol, you make that?  What is a strike witch?

Quote from: Ion.67 on January 12, 2009, 03:40:43 AM
Looks like we have a mad one on our hands. Get out the lube

Hi5 !  Ion pwns teh papaskull ,its very niece! , Papa a dee skuller  will need lube

cause lots of sexytime in the tourny ah wow-wow wa wee waa


Mounted like lions head on wall. yes , Very Nice !   ;D

Haha, I love this thread.

*frvge edit: unnecessary post*

I just find it hilarious that you seem to think that the fact fire can make someone pass out is more important than the imminent threat of burning.

Please let the thread die. I dont want to lock it...

Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on January 12, 2009, 09:08:07 PM
I just find it hilarious that you seem to think that the fact fire can make someone pass out is more important than the imminent threat of burning.

Imminent threat of burning?  Elaborate a little more please.  If not, then everyone stfu and let this thread die. 

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 12, 2009, 03:07:32 AM
Pretty sure I had some 13/14 pagers way back.  They'll never be beaten.

You're real fuckin funny there spek.   You're analogies were way out there, surprised anyone bought em, regardless of the general opinion of the flamethrower. 

Oh noes, someone on teh internets hates meh!

I should animate a spy face that looks like it's caring, but it's really not. Would be a nice addition to the list of "creative" things you'd like to add to PS.

Quote from: frvge on January 12, 2009, 09:16:05 PM
Please let the thread die. I dont want to lock it...

Didn't ask what you wanted

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:09:59 AM
Didn't ask what you wanted

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:10:15 AM

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:09:59 AM
Didn't ask what you wanted

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:10:37 AM

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:10:15 AM

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:09:59 AM
Didn't ask what you wanted

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:10:50 AM

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:10:37 AM

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:10:15 AM

Quote from: Blank Man on January 13, 2009, 01:09:59 AM
Didn't ask what you wanted

Spam!  >:(  :o  :-X  :-[

I go by cock mongler, mongler of all cocks. Give me a cock and I shall mongle it.

This needs to be locked.  If not, then I say let's make it the largest thread in PS history.  So, how was your day today Ion?  Mine sure was dandy.  FRIENDLY CONVERSATION NOW~!!!!!!!!!!1

Quote from: Papa Skull on January 13, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
This needs to be locked.  If not, then I say let's make it the largest thread in PS history.  So, how was your day today Ion?  Mine sure was dandy.  FRIENDLY CONVERSATION NOW~!!!!!!!!!!1

Capz lock doeznt = Friendsly converzation :/