Jump to content

Primary and secondary fire of Flame tank


Demigan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have long said that the flame-tank used to have a special secondary fire. This secondary fire fired with only the left barrel of the tank, dealing the full 100% damage from that barrel.

This used to be very handy for killing slim tanks (the Med from the front or back for instance) or when attacking infantry you could use the extra punch.

What you do with this info is your choice. I always liked this option as it made the flame tank much more useful against tanks and infantry instead of just a building killer

With thanks to Ban4life to helping with making and editing.

Edit: updated the video

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the Vanilla Ren? My last info about the flametank was that it ALWAYS shot just from one barrel (the left one) based upon the lazyness of the devs of WW or the W3D-Engine.

If you look at the beginning of the video, it says it was shot in Vanilla Ren yes. In the latest fan-updated versions (which you need to access ALL servers) this was removed (sadly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondary fire from these tanks was proven to be an error in the coding and unintended by Westwood. It was fixed by TT via scripts for this reason.

I went and found the quotes explaining it, from Saberhawk and StealthEye.

If the flamer was intended to shoot from one muzzle only on secondary fire, it would have had secondary fire muzzles. Relying on logic like this is a very unlogical decision for Westwood to make. If they really wanted this to happen, they would have made a weapon setting for it or they would have defined the secondary muzzles. Not coded weird logic to sortof guess what they want. The idea behind the code is clearly: if the secondary muzzle is not defined, use the primary muzzle's position. The code was clearly broken.

Those two fields define what gets shot out, how fast, etc from primary and secondary fire for a weapon. They are the same. The math isn't wrong. The animation isn't wrong. The code that *guesses* where the secondary barrels are did not account for the fact that you could have both primary barrels defined. It is clearly a "logic" bug (as in a not fully defined logic, not a typo or other type of bug). The fact that the secondary fire is defined *exactly* like primary fire on the flame tank weapon proves this. The fact that the emitters show up at the correct locations proves this as well.

We merely fixed a bug in the muzzle prediction code which affected all vehicles that have both primary muzzles defined, but not the secondary ones.

Right, so let's review:

1) Right click on flame tank causes double damage via the first primary muzzle, while none via the second primary muzzle.

2) This exploit was not noticed during Westwood QA because of another bug. This other bug causes emitters for secondary fire modes to be displayed at the primary muzzles instead of the secondary muzzles. *No* vehicle in vanilla Renegade has emitter weapons (aka flamethrower) and two sets of muzzles so it's very likely that it was never noticed.

3) There is no documentation whatsoever from Westwood that the flame tank has a secondary fire mode.

From the code, it's clearly a bug that it happens, the bug is not that the flames show up at both muzzles.

The reason it was bugged is this: the flame tank has two muzzles defined, only the primary fire ones. The game tries to guess what the secondary fire muzzles should be. It changes the muzzles like this:

primary muzzle 1: assumed to always be set.

primary muzzle 2: if unknown, this is set to primary muzzle 1.

secondary muzzle 1: if unknown, set to primary muzzle 1.

secondary muzzle 2: if unknown, set to secondary muzzle 1.

This works usually, when there is only one muzzle set or when primary1 and secondary1 are set properly. It fails however when primary1 and primary2 are set, but both secondaries are not. In that case, secondary muzzle 2 will be set to primary muzzle 1, which makes no sense. I changed it to set secondary muzzle 2 to primary muzzle 2 if secondary muzzle 1 was not set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, the fact that it was a glitch is irrelevant. Street Fighter 2 had a bunch of glitches which became features of later iterations of the game.

They were clearly glitches, yes, but its really irrelevant to the discussion of -> Should it be included? Should it inspire a new feature? Could it help balance? Are Flame Tanks lacking without it?

Those are true, much more interesting questions.

Though it this were to be added in some way, I'd argue the best way would be to have primary fire fire the left cannon, and secondary fire fire the right cannon -> when firing only one, does more damage (maybe not 2x, but more than 1x).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renegade X does not want to include any glitches over from Renegade, regardless if they became a core aspect of the gameplay or not. This was already discussed in depth with PT's through walls and wall hopping. Both are removed for that reason, and this glitch is no different.

Pretty steep from someone defending free aim xD

Seriously though, SFJake makes a good assumption. Are flame tanks lacking without it?

In my opinion, the flame tank would need this if it isn't buffed in any other way. It is severely limited in its use, as it is only good against buildings or sometimes if you can come from behind or the front unexpected. Maybe a good rush obstacle, but compared to the med he's just plain overpriced due to its short range, double barrels that cannot have concentrated fire on anything but buildings+3 tanks and bulky exterior. If you even get to surprise people, you are only fully effective against the Mammoth tank (all sides), MRLS (only flanking) and the med (only flanking). A med can still seriously damage you, while you should be annihilating them for finally getting them in your damage zone!

Giving it this secondary fire will increase it's effectiveness regarding both units (its purpose in all other C&C games) and tanks. It isn't a real good advantage, as you still need to be up close and it is still relatively hard to kill units. As the speed of the vehicles does not change that much, they can either outrun you or make you waste way too many precious seconds, probably destroying you before you reach them. Cornering or surprise is very difficult with a tank this bulky, even if it is relatively fast. Relatively fast isn't that impressive compared to the other tanks.

Even if you reach an opponent, they can still dish out a hefty amount of damage, forcing you to return, give up any distance advantage you gained. Not many teammates are repairing flamers in my experience.

Also, maybe Westwood did see what happened with the code during the making, and decided not to change it. If the math and code is wrong, but the process works to give that single, not even game-changing advantage to an overpriced tank, why not keep the code like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free-aim isn't a glitch and was intended by Westwood. So much so, in fact, that locking the vehicle camera to the turret was off by default.

Westwood didn't know of the flame tank glitch. If they had found it and decided to have kept it, it would have been public information (they wouldn't hide it - they would have acknowledged it). They also would have fixed the emitters if they had found it, and fixed the coding for secondary firing on the other tanks as well. They did not.

It was OP in renegade anyway, and I'm glad they removed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flamer firing from one muzzle was not intentional. There is the stuff that Hate quoted, but even that is over analyzing it.

To put it plainly:

If the flame tank was meant to fire from one muzzle, then it would only have one muzzle. Period.

Firing from two muzzles is no where near as effective as firing from just one. So it stands to reason that if firing from one is so effective and having the option to just fire from one is there... then what is the point of having a second muzzle in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firing from two muzzles is no where near as effective as firing from just one. So it stands to reason that if firing from one is so effective and having the option to just fire from one is there... then what is the point of having a second muzzle in the first place?

That is true. Although my opinion is that it could have a stronger (not double damage) alt fire, it can do without. It is a highly specialised weapon for killing buildings and should be backed up for support by other tanks anyway.

Keep in mind that we made this video more to inform the old Renegade players that are confused about mostly this alt-fire. We had several discussions on this forum about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue the reality perspective. The muzzles would be designed to handle a specific amount of heat. Just pushing all of the two muzzles worth of flames through one muzzle would make it melt.

Normally reality isnt much of a topic with this game, but things have to be at least partially define by reality (ie gotta have gravity, though thinking about a mod that would remove gravity and add jetpacks sounds freakin sweet...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

You don't want to bring a glitch back? Fine. You did change the mammy tank tho based on balance.

well, lets do one better. Make the flame from the flame tank aim inwards, creating a spot of flame merging. That way, flame tanks have a very positional dependent way to deal with tanks and infantry.

small adjustment, balance buff that theoretically makes awful tanks good (besides burning bases flame tanks only beat mammys and no other unit ever.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flame-tank can beat any and all units (except the new Mammoth) when he hits with both nozzles from the point 'Go'. But when does that happen? There are so few times you can actually surprise someone that you can maul them at close range that the Flamer usually lags behind in damage compared to the Med, Light, Art, Stank... just about any tank really.

I do think if all infantry get a new pass, the flamer should get one too. I liked BroTranquility's idea to have the muzzles aim slightly inwards so more damage is concentrated.

Another idea is to increase it's speed, or give it an ability for a short speed-burst (3 seconds is more then enough). This way it can actually catch up on other tanks, combined with a slightly inwards aim it has an easier time hitting with both nozzles. It's also more logical to have a flame-focal point with such a short-ranged weapon, it's ability to melt tanks in real life would double.

No direct damage increase, just an easier time hitting with both nozzles and a way to get close enough to actually deal that damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the flame tank is powerful enough already as it is. It already got a speed, range and huge damage buff Vs. Vehicles compared to tiberian dawn. And there it already was a badass vehicle as it would rip entire buildings apart in a matter of seconds (not anymore off course). If you're using a flame tank to destroy vehicles on the field or something... You're simply doing it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flame-tank can beat any and all units (except the new Mammoth) when he hits with both nozzles from the point 'Go'.

Flametank used to easily beat a Mammoth in Renegade at close range...hope that has changed solely because of the Mammy buff and not a slight Flamer nerf as well. Orca was too strong, Transport too weak, Mammoth too weak and Arty too strong based on the price, the rest of the vehicles were fine in terms of overall value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flame tanks are situational, as is pretty much any Nod vehicle; thats just the style of the faction. GDI's units are more generalists.

The flame tank was the highest DPS tank on Nod's side and was seconded only by the APC in survivability, which made it perfect for rushes. It could easily be blocked by Mammys and APCs, though, so I felt the balance of the tank was pretty good in the original.

And no, single Mammy would win in a 1v1 duel, assuming the Mammy's pilot wasnt stupid and used rockets instead of the main gun that would clip through the tank without doing any damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Single Mammy would get raped if both started attacking each other at close range. Rockets will fly right over a good Flamer driver constantly ramming into the Mammy, they were the ammo of choice for close, but not point blank range...I doubt the Mammy could even win a theoretical fight with all rockets hitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flame tank was the highest DPS tank on Nod's side and was seconded only by the APC in survivability

The APC has 600 HP and the flame tank has 800. Both use CNCVehicleHeavy armor.

Flame tank is designed specifically for tearing mammies and buildings to shred. Any vehicle that is faster will most likely have an advantage most of the time. The better mammy in Renegade X will mean that the flame tank will likely be used more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Single Mammy would get raped if both started attacking each other at close range. Rockets will fly right over a good Flamer driver constantly ramming into the Mammy, they were the ammo of choice for close, but not point blank range...I doubt the Mammy could even win a theoretical fight with all rockets hitting.

I personally saw a mammy take out a flame full health tonight on Jelly. Maybe if the flame was able to get on the side of the mammy and face parallel with it, the rockets would miss it. But at close range on the front, the rockets hit.

The APC has 600 HP and the flame tank has 800. Both use CNCVehicleHeavy armor.

True, but the APC is fast and can dodge a lot more.

My original point was that the flame was fairly balanced in Renegade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

In renegade, not played x never saw flamer used, but in ren it beat nothing but buildings and mammy.

my bet is it no longer reams mammy with mammy extra firepower.

as long as it isn't much less than 100 weaker than a stank. Which it was worth no more than 600 in ren.

in ren it was just a tank that did high and inaccurate dps. The inaccuracy never made it more dps than shells on other vehicles, and that basically made it an anti building tank. Def worth 600 if just another flavor of light. Just like mammy wasn't worth more than 800 as another flavor of med.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A flame tank's fire spreads out quickly. If you attack a mammy that starts JUST inside firing distance, a good mammy driver can escape with his life.

If you attack a Med when he's halfway inside your max firing distance, the flamer is screwed. They are both just as fast and the flamer will miss too much to kill it effectively.

If it started almost against it, like when you pop over the hourglass hill though... Sure! You could annihilate tanks and be back over.

But here is the biggest problem: a flame tank will always be up front, the primary target. While a Stank can deal all his damage as long as his target is in range, a flamer never stops having to move closer to his enemies. A stank can effectively out-DPS a flamer in almost any situation, perhaps with the exception of building killing, simply because a flamer loses damage when he's not at point-blank range.

The fact that a flamer deals the most damage in game compared to ANY type of vehicle is clear. It still remains the only vehicle that can cash out more damage to tanks then a Hotwire can repair. But only if he's against his enemy. Since just about every tanks is either just as fast or even faster, the flamer is kinda bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flame tank doesn't do more damage than a hotwire can repair per second to a building, but you are right that it does do more damage to tanks (I'd hope so!). The arty, stank, and mammy all have this advantage too. Even the med does, actually.

The mammoth tank also has a higher overall DPS with its rockets and will kill a building faster assuming both tanks start firing at the same time, even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...