Technical Flame Guy

willdabeast85
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:17 pm

Technical Flame Guy

Post by willdabeast85 »

Is the flame route practical/efficient for anything. I always have gone the rocket route with my Technical troops.....I find the rockets too hard to give up.

To get close enough to use the flamethrower...I feel Assualt, Shinobi, or even Ranger would be a better choice.

Thoughts?
Dwarfling
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:16 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Dwarfling »

Personally I have yet to take a Technical up to MSGT going all Fireman side. My Technicals that do make it are either full on Rocketeer or Fireman-Hybrid. So I guess you could take the rest of the post with a grain of salt.

My Fireman-Hybrids take all Fireman skills, but instead of picking Roust they take FitH, and instead of Firestorm, Bunker Buster (also Formidable). I think Roust is ok, but an accurate rocket is just... More ok? Plus I consider the Bunker Buster far superior to Firestorm, mostly because of ease of use.

My biggest beef with the full Fireman is that they're prone to being mispositioned, whereas with accurate rockets it often doesn't matter where it is, said Technical can contribute.
Redshirt4life
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:22 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Redshirt4life »

Everything the flamethrower touches is pretty much out of the fight for 2+ rounds, plus it provides the technical smoke. Kind of puts assaults and rangers to shame. Make high dodge, low defense soldiers into flame technicals. Grab formidable too. They can just run up, burn everything, and tank all the damage for the team. Pistol perks work great on them. The DLC pistol can give concealment allowing for multiple flame ambushes in one battle.
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Noober »

willdabeast85 wrote:Is the flame route practical/efficient for anything. I always have gone the rocket route with my Technical troops.....I find the rockets too hard to give up.

To get close enough to use the flamethrower...I feel Assualt, Shinobi, or even Ranger would be a better choice.

Thoughts?
Pure flame/rocket path seems not optimal.
Even for rocketeer at CPL and SGT flame skills are stonger compare to rocket path.
SSGT formidable looks the best for both paths.
TSGT-MSGT rocket skills seems better than flame path as it gives the reliable AoE cover destruction on a very long range for only 1 AP (or a massibe AoE 100% cover destruction at 2AP) and for close combat you still have 7 tile AoE flamer with stun and smoke options.

Give them +3-4 HP PCS + EXO/WAR + nano vest/medkit and SMG (even ballistic is OK) and you have a very strong and versatile class for ambushes/CC/anti cover/front line tanking.
My tanks on legend.
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Psieye »

I had a Commander campaign where I banned myself from picking FitH. Ended up with a MSGT flamer who didn't have quickburn while taking firestorm (a mistake). EXO gives +1 Roust use as well as +2 normal flame use, but since the alternative is +1 FitH-aimed rocket use, it's not a compelling argument for picking Roust. Still, it's nice having lots of "personal smoke" charges and you know how much I favour smoke and Aid Prot.
willdabeast85 wrote: To get close enough to use the flamethrower...I feel Assualt, Shinobi, or even Ranger would be a better choice.
Those are options to oneshot things. Just as you don't use the rocket to oneshot things, you don't use the flamethrower to oneshot things.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by gimrah »

More broadly, the technical tree offers probably the most flexibility of any class.

While I find it really hard to suppress my min-maxing instincts, technicals are probably best mixing it up. E.g. in joinrbs' class video I think he took 2 rocket perks, 2 flame perks and the rest centre column.

I have become a fan of rocket-heavy builds. They are so good with an exo suit and upgraded gauntlet. The problem is those bits of kit are expensive and I don't have enough for a long time. Arguably flamers don't need either, at least on small GOps, because 2 flames is enough so exo is overkill, and the status effect is most of the point, so the gauntlet is less necessary. And the rocket becomes mainly cover destruction.

I think in future I would build B/C team technicals to be less reliant on rockets (and hence gear). Something like: FitH->Fort->Burnout->Form->Incinerator->Quickburn->BB.
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Noober »

gimrah wrote: I think in future I would build B/C team technicals to be less reliant on rockets (and hence gear). Something like: FitH->Fort->Burnout->Form->Incinerator->Quickburn->BB.
I played with this build for a while but ended up using no more than 1 burn on GOP late game but all availabe rockets were always used.
Javelin and salvo seems stronger especially in case of bad activation or multiple activations because of long range.

But it heavily depends on playstyle - I used to bring support grenadiers for CC so no supper for cover destuction.
And I used to bring OW rangers on GOP instead of gunners so no demolition.
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by gimrah »

Also sentinels and commandos are such spoilsports with their insane detection radius. Even with incinerator and stealth perks from AWC, you usually can't proactively stealth burn.
1Warmonger
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:47 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by 1Warmonger »

Being a fan of Xwynn's "burninations", I tried the flame path hard, but the rockets are so much more versatile. I go all rockets except for concussion (I think those are not very useful, usually remain unused) - or - hybrid, my favorite, with shred and rapid fire.
Redshirt4life
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:22 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Redshirt4life »

Probably the most badass entrance goes to a flame technical with pistol skills and berserker armor.
Smash the centermost opponent to the ground then..
Quickburn - firestorm - fan the hammer - lightning hands - faceoff

Worth doing just because its cool.
Swiftless
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:31 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Swiftless »

Flame technicals are fun. I've only played them on vet campaigns so far but they can be a little problematic late game where the ability to ambush burn things becomes less effective due to detection range. They can also lag a bit in damage output if M3's start showing up and you don't yet have the third tier gauntlet. However as others have mentioned, they provide a lot of CC and defensive capability even without damage output.

Starting out though they can easily wipe out an entire pod in one go which makes them very useful for getting started. In my case I focused on low aim but high mobility soldiers; that way I had the ability to close-in with the flamethrower from almost anywhere. I think without a high mobility you might find them a one trick pony only really good at being able to open up with a flame ambush and ending up short a tile or two here and there for a burn on the rest of the mission.
Dwarfling
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:16 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Dwarfling »

Here's the thing tho: Rocketeers and hybrids do flame ambushes too, and the Hybrid do them just as good. The main difference between a hybrid and a pure Fireman is the latter get Roust and Firestorm. How good are those skills compared to accurate rocket and Bunker Buster?

Image
Last edited by Dwarfling on Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SonnyWiFiHr
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:57 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by SonnyWiFiHr »

Ha
Attachments
Flame Thrower).jpg
Flame Thrower).jpg (8.36 KiB) Viewed 30038 times
The Preacher
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by gimrah »

Loving the Simpsons soldiers running through these threads.

I decided I like roust but not as much as I like being able to use my rocket. Without FitH the rocket just becomes so situational, like when there are enemies clumped on a car, but that's about it. And roust's forced move effect is almost always useless IME: even paired with overwatchers they often find a way to move without triggering it. So the fire is too unreliable except for desperation moves. So basically it's use is as a low but guaranteed damage AoE attack. Which is fine, but a usable rocket does more and is useful in more situations.

I've never used firestorm. I'd like to but my technicals die a lot. Even so I feel it's more a fun ability than really being as powerful as bunker buster. You can run in and flame absolutely everything and run out (after quickburn). Or run in and flame absolutely everything and just stand there with fortify and smoke from burnout. And that could be amazing but it's very situational: you need bio targets in an area you can get to without activating the whole map that also doesn't contain your soldiers or friendly civilians (thinking invasions and retals). Whereas when don't you want a large AoE total cover destruction attack with good damage?
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Psieye »

gimrah wrote:Loving the Simpsons soldiers running through these threads.

I decided I like roust but not as much as I like being able to use my rocket. Without FitH the rocket just becomes so situational, like when there are enemies clumped on a car, but that's about it. And roust's forced move effect is almost always useless IME: even paired with overwatchers they often find a way to move without triggering it. So the fire is too unreliable except for desperation moves. So basically it's use is as a low but guaranteed damage AoE attack. Which is fine, but a usable rocket does more and is useful in more situations.

I've never used firestorm. I'd like to but my technicals die a lot. Even so I feel it's more a fun ability than really being as powerful as bunker buster. You can run in and flame absolutely everything and run out (after quickburn). Or run in and flame absolutely everything and just stand there with fortify and smoke from burnout. And that could be amazing but it's very situational: you need bio targets in an area you can get to without activating the whole map that also doesn't contain your soldiers or friendly civilians (thinking invasions and retals). Whereas when don't you want a large AoE total cover destruction attack with good damage?
Some part of me thinks Roust should be valued for being much quieter than a rocket and instinct says that should also be the case for Firestorm. But less noise output is hardly a deal maker when there's so much going for rockets and orange alert is something you get used to dealing with anyway?

As for the forced-move part of Roust, if I wanted to make it count then I'd be trying to predict where the AI will choose to move to. There's just not much value in convoluted things like "I slow that unit down then force it to move so it's only choice is this tile, which is exactly where I'd want to maximise some AoE". Sometimes I wish that kind of thinking mattered more, but "just kill them" is the most reliable "CC" there is.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
Yoshs
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Yoshs »

I tend to have techs specializing in two separate builds: fire and rockets- now admittedly I am not a min/maxer, something about me just likes variety even if maybe it isn't optimal. XCOM can be so situational though at times that after countless campaigns I'm honestly kind of still split on which tree is genuinely better. Busting up cover is obviously incredibly valuable, but flame techs setting people on fire and effectively removing them from the fight is also amazing. Plus there's something deeply... deeeeeppplllyyyyy.... satisfying about setting aliens on fire.

As Roust has been brought up numerous times in this thread though, thought I'd offer my two cents- the forced move element of the ability tends to be pretty garbage as far as forcing the enemy into less advantageous cover, I actually think that if LW was still being supported by the devs they should maybe have looked into making the forced move much more random since it seems that the aliens ALWAYS go to the best value cover within a short movement distance. If someone is shooting fire at you, you're not going to have the presence of mind to pick the best place to run to from your current position. That being said though, I still find a lot of value in Roust because of its incredible range, guaranteed damage through cover to eliminate low health/high threat targets, and probably most importantly: a decent chance of making the alien run through fire and catch aflame. Oh and if you take the perk for it, chance to fear/disorient the target.

Personally, I find a lot of value in CC'ing targets. Arguably the best CC is death though, so I fully admit I can be flat out wrong lol.
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by gimrah »

As I think about it, I think I should have a place for non-rocket techs in my roster. I reason thusly:

Technicals are good, so you want lots of them.

Technicals can be built around pretty much any stats, so you are more likely to choose to buy/rescue them.

Low ranked technicals are more effective contributors than other low ranked classes (a squaddie's flames still burn), so you are more likely to train them from rookies in the mid game.

Rocket techs are awesome but need exo suit and T2 gauntlet to shine from the mid game. Both are expensive.

Flame heavy builds not so much. T1 gauntlet has same burn chance as T2. And without biggest booms the rocket is more about cover destruction anyway.

A technical with quick study is a great candidate for pistol perks. Pistols suit flame users better: closer to the enemy and more likely to have a slot free (if you take biggest booms it's nice to carry a grenade).

My flame heavy build would probably be: FitH->Fort->Burnout->Burnout->Form->Incinerator->Quickburn->Bunker Buster (head) / Firestorm (heart). But will probably be too late or too dead to get to MSGT.
Redshirt4life
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:22 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Redshirt4life »

Better gauntlets increase napalm x chances from 50% to 65% to 85% and thats a really big deal, not so much with the regular flame attack, but with roust its game-changing. Flame techs scale really well because of this.

Roust + napalm-x = a flame-based sting grenade that deals damage and has higher CC chances. Roust's range is pretty long. Its allows the flame tech to consistently CC multiple targets outside the ambush. Regular flamethrower attack just doesn't have the range to do this otherwise.

The LCPL picks gave a common theme. Either you give up the long range ability of the rocket launcher, or you give up the long range ability of the flamethrower. I feel the impact of the later is being a bit underestimated.

The way I see it. I can work around losing FITH. It scales worse then roust because eventually the technicals aim will improve and the scatter will be less of a problem. High aim technicals don't even really need it unless they move before they rocket.

Bunker buster doesn't need any rocket perks to be good, and its the best pick at that rank. But I do build one firestorm technical. He gets exclusive rights to the berserker armor. Its super cheesy and broken and I love it.
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by gimrah »

It's a good point on the interaction between roust and Napalm-X.

My issue with taking Napalm-X is you miss out on Fortify. And to me Fortify has fantastic synergy with Burnout that lets you just stand in the open to flame. That makes your positioning a lot more flexible such that you are more likely to be able to hit multiple targets. Admittedly you could do the same with aid protocol or a smoke grenade but there is always value in self-sufficiency (also action economy).

I'm not sure about missing out FitH. With it my mid rank techs generally have about 1.0 scatter at max range. 2.0 scatter would mean they would miss the target a lot of the time.
Redshirt4life
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:22 am

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Redshirt4life »

I'm used to floppy rockets from my tenure at LW1.
User avatar
SonnyWiFiHr
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:57 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by SonnyWiFiHr »

I found that Formidable is one that I pick always on any class.
Not because I want tank - if I do not pick it I regret it.
Somehow this reduces my builds.
Never picked Fortify before but is quite useful now.
The Preacher
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by gimrah »

Formidable is always a perk that needs a good reason not to take. More ablative means fewer wounds. Also grazing fire as early DE really accentuates that.

Of course JL is smart enough to put it against strong competition on most trees.
Dwarfling
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:16 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by Dwarfling »

I find SSGT on Technicals pretty much a non-choice because Phosphorous is still bad and Tandem isn't really needed.

Which one would you take?

- Decreased chance of wounds?
- A tickle of damage on robotics? (shred doesn't mean pierce)
- Chance of not getting a small damage penalty on rockets (and I guess grenades)?

Hurr Durr.
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by gimrah »

Can't defend phosphorous. Flames are for CCing bio enemies. So robots are only in there by serendipity mostly.

Tandem I suspect makes more difference than we think. Unlike grenades, you often don't target rockets dead on one target. And rockets at full damage get kills. So if you don't play red fog that's fairly significant. Before M3s at least.
faket15
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:41 pm

Re: Technical Flame Guy

Post by faket15 »

gimrah wrote:Can't defend phosphorous. Flames are for CCing bio enemies. So robots are only in there by serendipity mostly.

Tandem I suspect makes more difference than we think. Unlike grenades, you often don't target rockets dead on one target. And rockets at full damage get kills. So if you don't play red fog that's fairly significant. Before M3s at least.
Tandem would be better if damage falloff actually worked as intended, with no falloff at 0-20% of the radius, 25% falloff at 20-50%, 50% at 50-75% and 75% at 75-100%. There is an error in the function that calculates the damage ratio from the distance ratio for damage, but not for environmental damage. Because of this error there is no falloff at 0-50%, 25% at 50-75% and 50% at 75-100%.
Post Reply