Pavonis Interactive Forums

This perk feels like a waste to ever take. Why? Because burning is way to strong of a debuff.
Burning is easy to inflict as even those who dont burn after getting flamed usually run trhough a burning tile and catch fire anyway, and not only can this dot tick for quite a lot of damage but it is also a 100% CC effect on every unit that can't melee (which is most of them) for a guarantied 2 turns.

Honestly this is so strong it feels like cheating every time i set half or more of the enemies on fire. It feels like playing a 90s FPS with godmode cheatcodes on. Also it makes panic from your flames completely irrelevant, making Napalm-X a waste since fortify is way better for a flamer tech.

IMO burning should not do the damage it does AND disable the ability to shoot. Preventing shooting is poison's thing (and that's not a full disable), preventing special abilities should be fire, and high DoT damage should be acid (since that has no CC effect). Maybe then napalm-X would feel worthwhile once you hit upgraded gauntlets.

Burning has a far lower chance to apply than the disorientation or panic effects from Napalm-X. Consider NX to be an assurance that the enemies you flame will be disabled.

Imagine trying to do any coherent action while burning. That is what the effect in game aims to reproduce.

However, it would be great if Burning also enabled a 2-action Ability called "Extinguish", which will remove the burning effect when used.
Thus, you either stay in place and risk to catch fire again and your cover to be destroyed, or you move to safer place and keep burning.

Burning also destroys cover and loot, while poison does not. If you want to advance and occupy the enemy position in the next few turns, poison is a better choice.

Mobtank wrote:This perk feels like a waste to ever take. Why? Because burning is way to strong of a debuff.
Burning is easy to inflict as even those who dont burn after getting flamed usually run trhough a burning tile and catch fire anyway, and not only can this dot tick for quite a lot of damage but it is also a 100% CC effect on every unit that can't melee (which is most of them) for a guarantied 2 turns.

Please tell me how you enabled xwynns mode

I more often fail to set any enemy on fire than affect all of them. Usually i can count on 1/3 enemies on fire. Napalm-X turns a moderate damage - weak CC AoE ability into a moderate damage - strong CC one and is a must take for any flamer specced technical.

The only time when i can count on half reliably putting most of them on fire is on the initial ambush because those who don't catch fire from the flame itself usually scamper through burning tiles but it's 1/4 uses of the flamethrower. Enemies that don't move don't catch fire so even if the tile they are standing on is on fire they can stay there and shoot you without being hampered.

Clibanarius wrote:Burning has a far lower chance to apply than the disorientation or panic effects from Napalm-X. Consider NX to be an assurance that the enemies you flame will be disabled.

You must not be flanking properly. A flanked enemy moves almost 100% of the time, and then runs through a burning tile and catches fire. On top of the initial chance to burn.

8wayz wrote:Imagine trying to do any coherent action while burning. That is what the effect in game aims to reproduce.

However, it would be great if Burning also enabled a 2-action Ability called "Extinguish", which will remove the burning effect when used.
Thus, you either stay in place and risk to catch fire again and your cover to be destroyed, or you move to safer place and keep burning.

Burning also destroys cover and loot, while poison does not. If you want to advance and occupy the enemy position in the next few turns, poison is a better choice.

Yes, that's why burning stops the usage of special abilities. But disabling shooting on top of that is to strong when combined with it's massive DoT potential. Also no, an enemy who burns to death does drop his loot. So given that you almost always flame full hp enemies to CC them you never really run the risk of burning loot (normally).

Other then ambush from concealment (which can be repeated if you use the shadowfall on your tech), the easiest way to burn em' is to pop fortify, dash into position, then command your tech to flame. Alternatively use a high mobility soldier with an SMG and Oscar Mike him. Roasted and flanked by a high defence target, they will move and those not burning will catch fire.
Once an enemy is on fire you can almost completely count him out of the game because he won't do anything for 2 turns, will likely burn to death, and on the off chance that he lives in 2 turns you have most likely dealt with his buddies and can kill him in peace.


Oh, and btw, this reminds me of another thing that feels cheap. Removing Mech overwatch with an SMG shot. They are mechs, they don't feel pain, why do they lose their overwatch after a single point of damage? This feels pretty bad for both Sparks and ADVENT Mechs.

Mobtank wrote: Other then ambush from concealment (which can be repeated if you use the shadowfall on your tech), the easiest way to burn em' is to pop fortify, dash into position, then command your tech to flame. Alternatively use a high mobility soldier with an SMG and Oscar Mike him. Roasted and flanked by a high defence target, they will move and those not burning will catch fire.

OK, flanking them is definitely a good point but

• Easier said than done. It's not always possible to find a spot where you can flank all of your targets while keeping a safe position (even with fortify+smoke you don't want to be flanked yourself) and not activate another pod.
• Some enemies don't give a ... (what's the rule for profanity on this board ?) about being flanked. It's especially true for those you really want to be controlled like Muton (Elites)

In addition, some enemies don't care being on fire (Stun lancers, Archons, Berserkers, Crysalids) while being panicked will stop them so i stand by my point that Napalm-X is a really good perk to improve the CC power of Flamers and past the early-mid game Flamers are all about CC as Gauntlets raw killing power doesn't increase as much as other weapons.

Once an enemy is on fire you can almost completely count him out of the game because he won't do anything for 2 turns, will likely burn to death, and on the off chance that he lives in 2 turns you have most likely dealt with his buddies and can kill him in peace.

1 turn actually. The turn after you set them on Fire they burn and are still on fire unable to take most actions. The next turn they burn again but then fire wears off and they are free to act - unless they are dead of course but again it's mostly valid in the early to early-mid game.

Don't get me wrong, fire itself is strong but that definitely doesn't make Napalm-X useless. Whether it's too strong or not is a different topic.

I feel napalm-X is quite mandatory for a flame build.

I mean ... as long as you are comfortable with 80% chance to disable, then you don't need it. But if you want it to be more reliable, then you need the napalm-X.

Plus it combos well end game with Coup'de Grace. Had 6/8 panicked once. You can pretty much Reaper them.

Also, M3s take little damage relative to their HP from a burnout. Panic makes them sitting ducks. Of course, you can take them even out without panic but it might take more turns / repositioning. Sometimes you can't afford to fight 3 turns or you prefer do not move around to much in case more pods are around.

Every time I see a thread about Technicals, I play a game where I try to guess whether people are complaining about them being completely useless, or wildly OP. I'm usually wrong, but at least I'm never disappointed by it being neither

I agree with the principle behind what LordYanaek is saying, although in practice, I always seem to get panic on units that are burning anyway Just bad luck though, the logic behind choosing it is still valid and could save XCOM lives.

I don't know if I've ever seen disorient actually proc from the perk though, either in my playthroughs or xwynns' videos. I wonder if I am just being unobservant.