Can you set zombies / scenery / people on fire?

[Salamander]

A staple part of any zombie movie is setting zombies on fire.

Are there any ways in which to set these blighters alight?

Will there be a flamethrower in a later patch / addon?

Cheers.

[Puscifer]

Are there any ways in which to set these blighters alight?

petrol bombs

Will there be a flamethrower in a later patch / addon?


possible but i doubt it

:)

[Halfeatendonkey]

you should read around abit on this forum. You will have a molotov Cocktail that will be able to burn the infected alive..or..dead. No one knows what the patches / addons will include almost anything can show up in a mod / addon but a Flamethrower..i doubt it.

[hool10]

Watch any of the newer movies lol. We need to enforce the search button law on this forum. *BTW darksora, sorry for not responding to you 2 days ago. My video card burned out and sent off for an RMA, and my face is slowly starting to go back to normalcy after all my wisdoms were removed.

[dontleave]

Molotovs and gas canisters, and the occasional commonly occuring explosive flammable barrels or objects.

[Salamander]

Cool.

Shooting flaming zombies is a thing straight out of modern zombie films...

[Ydiss]

/me resists the urge to point out this isn't a zombie game :D

But flaming infected we shall have; rejoice.

Don't rule out a flame thrower, either... it would suit the game perfectly well in a content patch at a later date, providing the infected get something new to compensate (some sort of water-based infected boss would be juuuust right :))

[hool10]

Don't rule out a flame thrower, either... it would suit the game perfectly well in a content patch at a later date, providing the infected get something new to compensate (some sort of water-based infected boss would be juuuust right :))
Yeah because everybody has a flamethrower in a town and adding another boss infected that would defy physics and breaking balance issues would be great.

[Salamander]

Why would they have to adjust the balance of the "infected" because of a flamethrower? Its not like the infected fire bullets like a gun?

[USS_Stud]

Oh my god, no flamethrower. Christ.

[Plankie]

Flamethrower might be a bit TOO chaotic. Still, really awesome, lol

[iRelentless]

I don't think they will add a flame-thrower to L4D, it wouldn't kill them on impact so flames + horde of angry people rushing at you = extra crispy survivors.

There was someone working on a flame-thrower for DoD:S not too long ago though. http://forums.mattie.info/cs/forums/viewtopic.php? t=15520 (http://forums.mattie.info/cs/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15520)
So with L4D being on the source engine, Mattie's eventscripts could in theory be made work on it with some tweaking. (it works in CS:S, DoD:S and I think HL2:DM) So a server side mod which adds a flame-thrower could be possible, assuming they don't disallow server side mod's in L4D.

[Ydiss]

Yeah because everybody has a flamethrower in a town and adding another boss infected that would defy physics and breaking balance issues would be great.
I've read the final scenario of the game is set in a corn field. Often find machine guns lying about in a corn field, then?

Silly argument against it. You don't find guns just lying about in handy stashes with health packs that magically heal you in 5 seconds, either...

As for my suggestion about the "water" boss... it was a joke; hence the "juuuust right :)" bit.

But if new weapons are added for the survivors, particularly if they're quite powerful, the clear need would be for balance to be maintained by giving the infected something new.

No, water-based infected wouldn't be my serious suggestion.

But yanno... if you want to be a sarcastic sod about it, since when did a creature able to launch its tongue 50 yards to pull a fully grown human being through the air at high speed conform with commonly known physics?

This is a game, not real life.

A flame thrower is a possibility, as much as a grenade launcher or a rocket launcher - all potential weapons to be added in future patches.

[Ydiss]

I don't think they will add a flame-thrower to L4D, it wouldn't kill them on impact so flames + horde of angry people rushing at you = extra crispy survivors.

There was someone working on a flame-thrower for DoD:S not too long ago though. http://forums.mattie.info/cs/forums/viewtopic.php? (http://forums.mattie.info/cs/forums/viewtopic.php?) t=15520
So with L4D being on the source engine, Mattie's eventscripts could in theory be made work on it with some tweaking. (it works in CS:S, DoD:S and I think HL2:DM) So a server side mod which adds a flame-thrower could be possible, assuming they don't disallow server side mod's in L4D.I think it's unlikely too, but I did say that we shouldn't discount the possibility, rather than claim it to be highly likely.

And it wouldn't necessarily be a server side mod; I meant it could be one of the weapons TRS have suggested they might add in future updates.

[Ydiss]

Why would they have to adjust the balance of the "infected" because of a flamethrower? Its not like the infected fire bullets like a gun?That's exactly why the infected side would need something to balance it.........

Any new weapon added to the survivor's arsenal, providing it's an effective weapon, will add more strength to their side. Whilst I'm sure some would be happy to see the survivors gain an advantage without balance, most true gamers agree that things should be balanced.

Therefore, if the survivors get something new and improved the help them, what's your argument against the infected also getting something new and improved too?

[g0dlike]

If the survivors get a flamethrower, then the infected get a new boss that is "Subject 617" from Hidden-Source

Ftw.

(By the way, ALL of that was sarcasm. None of you be a cunt about it.)

[dontleave]

You realize nothing in L4D is just 'found' it's more like 'placed' there.

[iRelentless]

I think it's unlikely too, but I did say that we shouldn't discount the possibility, rather than claim it to be highly likely.
And it wouldn't necessarily be a server side mod; I meant it could be one of the weapons TRS have suggested they might add in future updates.
I hadn't seen yours when I posted, it was just a quick reply to the first post and the few I skim read before I went to the shops. But as part of an update/patch/content pack a flame-thrower would probably work, even if it was only available in campaigns or single maps/sections where it would be helpful.

I still stand by my flame-thrower + infected rush = extra crispy survivors equation though. Unless the flame-thrower would be strong enough to actually push the regular infected back or knock them down, but then it might be overpowered and need balancing.

[Ydiss]

I still stand by my flame-thrower + infected rush = extra crispy survivors equation though. Unless the flame-thrower would be strong enough to actually push the regular infected back or knock them down, but then it might be overpowered and need balancing.It would be a short-burst, close-range suppression weapon mainly and would slow down/stop normal infected as they fall to the ground and burn.

I know the flames should catch and spread as players bump into infected if it were real, but it isn't real so this simply wouldn't happen (it doesn't need to be made that complex).

The disadvantage of the flame-thrower would be short range and it causes relatively low damage over time, rather than instant damage.

The advantage of the flame thrower would be its ease of aiming (hose em down) and a total lack of spread/recoil, combined with the effect of slowing infected down (think crowd control).

I could see this being a totally viable team play option... one player picks up the flamer, runs ahead to spray the nearby hordes, pulls out and lets his allies mow em down, keeping nearby and in cover to provide suppression control bursts when the going gets tough and personal.

It could be potentially used totally as a way of controlling the swarms to help the survivors regain control of difficult situations.

This is mainly why I feel that were such a weapon to be implemented into the game the infected would need something to counteract this; perhaps with a boss infected that has a high resistance to the fire and can single out a flamer if it's able to avoid other survivors.

PS I'd like to add I couldn't care less if they added a flame thrower or not - I'm 100% happy with the weapons just how they are and would, in fact, be perfectly happy were TRS to never add another weapon to the game. I'm just up for a bit of discussion on the subject.

[iRelentless]

If it was done like that it could probably fit in on most levels without any extra balance needed for the bosses. A smoker could hang or blind the flame-thrower user, a boomer could, well... just run into him/her and boom, a tank could thow something or just run up and whack because they have high hp anyway, and a hunter could pounce on him/her.

But there would be a lot to take into account. For example, what if a tank smashed the fuel tank on the players back, another infected whacked it really hard, or someone shot it accidentally. Would it be viable to go with the more realistic option and have it explode? Or would that just lead rise to people playing as infected trying to use that like a suicide bomb to wipe out half the team. Or... well that's the only one I can think of right now that wouldn't also also apply to pipe bombs, but I'm sure there are more.

PS I'd like to add I couldn't care less if they added a flame thrower or not - I'm 100% happy with the weapons just how they are and would, in fact, be perfectly happy were TRS to never add another weapon to the game. I'm just up for a bit of discussion on the subject.
I feel more or less exactly the same way.

[Ydiss]

But there would be a lot to take into account. For example, what if a tank smashed the fuel tank on the players back, another infected whacked it really hard, or someone shot it accidentally. Would it be viable to go with the more realistic option and have it explode? Or would that just lead rise to people playing as infected trying to use that like a suicide bomb to wipe out half the team. Or... well that's the only one I can think of right now that wouldn't also also apply to pipe bombs, but I'm sure there are more.I did consider this (it's a fairly common game play component in other games that feature the weapon).

I discarded it, personally. It might suit game play when you're playing against other shooters but, as you rightly say, the infected do already have quite an arsenal at their disposal.

Anyway... I guess the OP wants to set the infected on fire and they'll get to do that :)

[caboos]

A staple part of any zombie movie is setting zombies on fire.

Are there any ways in which to set these blighters alight?

Will there be a flamethrower in a later patch / addon?

Cheers.

i dont know but that would be cool


_________________
im back...again

[Capo Di Tutti Capi]

Quoting: Ydiss
Don't rule out a flame thrower, either... it would suit the game perfectly well in a content patch at a later date, providing the infected get something new to compensate (some sort of water-based infected boss would be juuuust right :))

Yeah because everybody has a flamethrower in a town and adding another boss infected that would defy physics and breaking balance issues would be great.

well, why not? the laws of physics are broken all the time...
meh whatever they do I'm sure they'll make it beneficial 2 the game play expierence
I really couldn't care less what the put in, but I'm not playing any mods until i finish the game online (by myself sounds boring)

[Big_Bubbaloola]

I've read the final scenario of the game is set in a corn field. Often find machine guns lying about in a corn field, then?

Silly argument against it. You don't find guns just lying about in handy stashes with health packs that magically heal you in 5 seconds, either...

Then again how often do you find yourself running away froma horde of Infected? It's a game, come on Ydiss, suspend your disbelief.

[Ydiss]

Then again how often do you find yourself running away froma horde of Infected? It's a game, come on Ydiss, suspend your disbelief.Huh? My whole post is supporting the fact that the game is not meant to be realistic.

Read it again, please. You got me totally wrong.

[The One]

Then again how often do you find yourself running away froma horde of Infected? It's a game, come on Ydiss, suspend your disbelief.
Umm yeah Ydiss, its a damn game. So just calm down :P

And no, flamethrowers + L4D = FAIL

So no flamethrowers, it would just "FAIL"

[Deek]

Can you imagine some CS noob jumping into a game of L4D, circle strafing and bunny hopping, hosing all three of his teammates to death with a flamethrower? Jeeeeeesus.

[iRelentless]

Never mind, you were referring to the post quoted by Bubba, rather than the discussion in general.

But ye, anyone who posted thinking you were either fighting for or against a flame-thrower got you wrong. You said earlier, and I agreed, that:
PS I'd like to add I couldn't care less if they added a flame thrower or not - I'm 100% happy with the weapons just how they are and would, in fact, be perfectly happy were TRS to never add another weapon to the game. I'm just up for a bit of discussion on the subject.
(Although I think Capo's post before Bubba's was in response to hool and not your post.)

[hool10]

I've read the final scenario of the game is set in a corn field. Often find machine guns lying about in a corn field, then?

Silly argument against it. You don't find guns just lying about in handy stashes with health packs that magically heal you in 5 seconds, either...
It's not exactly set in a corn field. It's set in a rural area and rural areas still need cops. Probably raid a small town or police station. And yes, in a zombie scenario you would find guns laying around.

[Ydiss]

And yes, in a zombie scenario you would find guns laying around.This isn't a zombie situation, though, is it?

Zing!

But you wouldn't find flame throwers lying around? Why not?

Look, I don't want flame throwers in the game, I merely suggested there's a chance they could be added and that they could be done well, if added professionally. You just seem to be arguing with me because you don't like flame throwers, or you wouldn't come up with the argument that it's not likely for flame throwers to exist in a world that's vastly fictional. Ok, fine. Good for you!

Relentless, no I wasn't referring to you. Yes, you're right about Cappo... the quote system here isn't exactly clear... so I've edited.

Everyone else that thinks I like realism and don't think this is "just a game": Learn to read!

[USS_Stud]

But you wouldn't find flame throwers lying around? Why not?

Because when we turn on the news, there's always reports of drive-by flamings.

[Ydiss]

Because when we turn on the news, there's always reports of drive-by flamings.Along with the bulletins about those pesky infected human outbreaks, too.

Not to mention those documentaries I keep seeing about those amazing new health packs that magically take you from almost dead to fresh and healthy, all in 2 seconds.

Where's the rolleyes emoticon?

[Deek]

Well, fact o' the matter is, the devs have stated that they've based L4D's weapon selection on what one would find laying around a major city center in the wake of catastrophe ... pistols, shotguns, rifles dropped by the military, etc. So, while zombies and medpacks may be tottering on the edge of reason, it is the the developers intention that the weapons be limited by reality, to a degree. Selective realism ftw.

[Ydiss]

Well, fact o' the matter is, the devs have stated that they've based L4D's weapon selection on what one would find laying around a major city center in the wake of catastrophe ... pistols, shotguns, rifles dropped by the military, etc. So, while zombies and medpacks may be tottering on the edge of reason, it is the the developers intention that the weapons be limited by reality, to a degree.Indeed, this is true and I was aware of this.

But why does this discount the possibility that future add-on content packages might include a flamer?

Are you suggesting that you know the dev's intentions to never release a scenario that just might be suitable for a flame thrower within it? Ex Military base with a dissused weapons cache, for example?

It's unlikely, yes. But not impossible.

And at any rate, what other class weaponry is there for them to add? Missile launchers (unlikely as well), rocket launchers (again unlikely), grenade launchers (more likely), grenades (bleh), chain guns (lol doom!)?

The game has pretty much covered the basics of fire arm types so it would suggest that either a) TRS don't intend to add more weapon types in future or b) if they do, it is unlikely that they'll limit themselves and will be quite open to using more of that "selective realism" in allowing themselves the liberty to put in whatever bloody weapon they want!

No... flame throwers won't sit well within the game as it stands.

Which is lucky, really, because I haven't claimed they would.

[USS_Stud]

Not to mention those documentaries I keep seeing about those amazing new health packs that magically take you from almost dead to fresh and healthy, all in 2 seconds.
facepalm.jpg

Dude... just start compaining why there aren't any rocket launchers already. We could easily throw the "Military has rocket launcers" right in the arguement. It's hard evidence no one can argue against. AMIRITE?

[Deek]

Are you suggesting that you know the dev's intentions to never release a scenario that just might be suitable for a flame thrower within it? Ex Military base with a dissused weapons cache, for example?
If they release a scenario that changes the dynamic, of course. But ... what would one find laying around military base? That pretty much opens the floodgates. If Mike B and Co. decide to include a mini-SAW and a grav gun in L4D: Area 51, that's their prerogative. Anything is possible! But, so far as vanilla L4D is concerned, the devs intend for the weapons to be small arms. Assuming they intend to maintain the dynamic, that's all I can really comment on, atm.

[Ydiss]

Dude... just start compaining why there aren't any rocket launchers already. We could easily throw the "Military has rocket launcers" right in the arguement. It's hard evidence no one can argue against. AMIRITE?I've never complained about anything in L4D. Ever.

I have even said so here twice, I'm happy with the weapons in the game.

I've said only that it's possible, not that I'd want a flame thrower in the game.

Take the sarcasm elsewhere.

[Salamander]

It depends on the scenario.

I imagine that after a few levels / stages / maps, they *might* become more organised or resourceful and have the ability to build a flamethrower perhaps?

Suppose the infection started 6 months ago, wouldnt they be more prepared in that case, maybe?

[Deek]

they *might* become more organised or resourceful and have the ability to build a flamethrower perhaps?
That would be my thought. In fact, in keeping with the post-apocalyptic scavenger dynamic, it'd be fun to see "improvised" weapons, such as a can of WD40 and a Zippo lighter. =)

[Ydiss]

, it'd be fun to see "improvised" weapons, such as a can of WD40 and a Zippo lighter. =)Ding :) We have a winner :) I'd use that lol

[USS_Stud]

Well that's in RE Outbreak.
Christ that's all you had to say.

[Deek]

Well that's in RE Outbreak.
Never played. Heard the load times were heinous. That, and I don't own a PlayStation. =P

[Ydiss]

Never played. Heard the load times were heinous. That, and I don't own a PlayStation.
^^

[The One]

I've never really played outbreak but are the load times bad?

[USS_Stud]

Heard the load times were heinous
This is Capcom were talking about.
All their games have load screens changing areas, even Dead Rising. And no sign of change in sight.

(Had an HDD btw, didn't have probs with load times)