Flamethrower?

[awesomeboy95]

ok guys imagine this if you only get this it will be fair here are my reasons:
1)if you shoot the tank on the back boom...
2) its an extremely close weapon
3) it'll prob drain a lot of ammo fast...

[DestroManiak]

ok guys imagine this if you only get this it will be fair here are my reasons:
1)if you shoot the tank on the back boom...
2) its an extremely close weapon
3) it'll prob drain a lot of ammo fast...

In reality I dont think flame throwers are so great, unless you blow up machine gunners by just putting the flame inside

[briddler13]

Flamthrowers in game don't run out of ammo 

[DestroManiak]

Flamthrowers in game don't run out of ammo 

yea they run out of fuel dont they

[Colonel Vasquez2]

Yes but what would happen if you ran out of fuel

[briddler13]

^ THEY DON'T IN-GAME!!!!! THEY HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUEL!!!

[DestroManiak]

^ THEY DON'T IN-GAME!!!!! THEY HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUEL!!!

how can ya know?
Is there a demo
I dont think so youre just makin fool of a-us arent you???

[briddler13]

^ THEY DON'T IN-GAME!!!!! THEY HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUEL!!!

how can ya know?
Is there a demo
I dont think so youre just makin fool of a-us arent you???

"It was this conflict that played out in the level Keirsey watched me play. The far-reaching flame-thrower was used to eliminate enemy soldiers stationed in bunkers, its burn extensive and dangerous. Players using the flamethrower can be blown up. Fuel does not expire in the game, despite Keirsey’s preference that it would. (He also would prefer that friendly fire is punished heavily — he suggested an electric shock to gamers who do it, but the game won’t offer that reprimand)." - Taken from http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/19/how-the-japanese-fight/

[DestroManiak]

^ THEY DON'T IN-GAME!!!!! THEY HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUEL!!!

how can ya know?
Is there a demo
I dont think so youre just makin fool of a-us arent you???

"It was this conflict that played out in the level Keirsey watched me play. The far-reaching flame-thrower was used to eliminate enemy soldiers stationed in bunkers, its burn extensive and dangerous. Players using the flamethrower can be blown up. Fuel does not expire in the game, despite Keirsey’s preference that it would. (He also would prefer that friendly fire is punished heavily — he suggested an electric shock to gamers who do it, but the game won’t offer that reprimand)." - Taken from http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/19/how-the-japanese-fight/

well okay then, okay I agree you

[TragicMassacre]

i dont think theyll put it in the online game

Are You kidding? Seriously.  It's one of the top two new additions to the game (along with splitscreen online) and they aren't gonna but in in Call of Duty's leading feature.
Wow, you're very intellegent.

[awesomeboy95]

^ THEY DON'T IN-GAME!!!!! THEY HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUEL!!!

no they don't in search or hq all u do would spam all entrances with flame thrower they have fuel

[Leucitanious]

You missed out one or multiple poll options. The one I would like to vote for would be 'I believe it'll prove to be a balanced weapon, and also help balance combat as a whole' or something along those lines.

As you're poll options are latent, I'm unable to vote.

And it was already mentioned that it would be a multi-player perk. I don't think you've taken this into consideration when creating the 'overkill' and 'don't think it will be in game' options.

Regardless personally I believe it will be a nice close combat weapon, but very close and will have very limited ammunition therefore you won't be able to rely on it. Essentially it'll just be extra protection for players like snipers, who won't be proficient in close ranged combat. But I'd imagine to switch between this and you're regular weapon would take some time (5 seconds maybe) so it'd have to be uses tactically, naturally players would be able to camp with it however due to the limited supplies of ammunition they may have a long wait for just one kill.

I also imagine it'll take some time for the flame to extend  to full length (1-2 seconds) and the flame itself will definitely expose the playing using to enemies nearby as it'll have a distinctive sound and surely light the area up, perhaps even leaving smoke residue.

[Sgt Smoove]

You missed out one or multiple poll options. The one I would like to vote for would be 'I believe it'll prove to be a balanced weapon, and also help balance combat as a whole' or something along those lines.

As you're poll options are latent, I'm unable to vote.

This is the second time I've seen you use the latent in a way I don't understand.  Seriously, what's going on here?

Latent means inactive or dormant.  It doesn't mean partial or inadequate, or anything else I can come up with that would make that statement make sense.  Since your post was condescending to the person who created the thread, you may want to correct that potential gaffe.

 Is latent some new slang for something else, and am I just out of the loop?

[Leucitanious]

^ THEY DON'T IN-GAME!!!!! THEY HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUEL!!!

Firstly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're caps lock key is jammed.

And if you took the time to read the 'multiplayerblog' article, despite it being a feature on 'multiplayerblog' it was on the single player campaign and enemy tactics. Essentially it states that in the single player due to these said tactics, the primary means of taking out large groups of enemies was the flamethrower. 

You may have noticed in CoD4 that there are many weapon features that feature in the single player campaign that do not feature in the multiplayer; reasoning? because the single player weapons are setup to be 'hax' for want of a better word. However the majority of the weapons availible in it's single player campaign have been reworked for it's multiplayer. Because multiplayer  each player weapon needs to be 'balanced' fit into it's role and purpose.... etc, whereas this is not the case in multiplayer.

Plus, you'll probably notice that the majority of weapons excluding the barret.50 cal are more realistic in multiplayer than they are in single player. Which means that theres a distinct possibility that whilst the ammunition is infinite in campaign, it's also quite likely it won't be for multiplayer.

Not to mention that that was an early demo that the article was based on, demos often have aspects which don't feature in the actual game so that the user is able to get a good experiance of the game (and it's flamethrower)

Regardless, you should read you're source information correctly  before you attempt to base statements on 'fact'

[Leucitanious]

You missed out one or multiple poll options. The one I would like to vote for would be 'I believe it'll prove to be a balanced weapon, and also help balance combat as a whole' or something along those lines.

As you're poll options are latent, I'm unable to vote.

This is the second time I've seen you use the latent in a way I don't understand.  Seriously, what's going on here?

Latent means inactive or dormant.  It doesn't mean partial or inadequate, or anything else I can come up with that would make that statement make sense.  Since your post was condescending to the person who created the thread, you may want to correct that potential gaffe.

 Is latent some new slang for something else, and am I just out of the loop?

The chose the word I did as presumptions means of implying that the post was so 'flawed' that the problem I had it would be added which would mean it was 'dormant'.

In case you're confused, that would mean it potentially existed originally, but it wasn't realized by the OP. After my post it theoretically was.

Admittedly I used the word at the boundaries of it's definition however it should have still been sensical. I've changed the other post of mine which you picked up on, but not the one in this one. I type out my posts during games in CoD so generally use the first word that comes to mind.

I apologize for the confusion caused, perhaps I should keep my posts simpler anyway, considering I'm sure the majority of users are less literate than you. (not intended to offend)