Flame throwers

[sketch814 25]

Not much of a suggestion as I just wanted some feedback on what people thought about this. In DayZ, I often run into gas canisters that I don't pick up because I honestly don't see a use for them. But what if it could be used as ammunition for a flame thrower? Flame throwers could be used to burn buildings, set fields of tall grass on fire, forest fires and so many more things. Of course the only way of using it would be to find the flame thrower and then to find gas canisters to fill up the tank. Alternatively you could fill it up at a gas station but in a zombie apocalypse I would imagine everyone would have taken all of the gas to drive off far away.

Here is a list of pros and cons the flame thrower could have

Pros:

1) Burns players to death easily

2) Easily for taking out hoards of zombies

3) Sets stuff on fire, changing the game play of the map

 

Cons:

1) Destroys items the victim is carrying

2) May be hard to find a lot of gas to be used often

3) Would be heavy to carry around

4) If another player shot your gas tank on your back, it would either end in an explosion or gas leaking out.

[gibonez 3633]

I would not want them in not realistic and if they are anything like real life the flamethrower is more of a danger to the player than whatever it is trying to burn.

[frosti 2165]

 

2) Easily for taking out hoards of zombies

 

pls at least be honest. Flamethrower has as much to do with klling zombies as flashbang

 

Flamethrower is just another player killing tool.

[Guest]

i prefer the weaopn at 3:02min

 

Edited July 2, 2014 by Guest

[Exorade 214]

I can't even imagine how hard it would be to code that into the game.

[frosti 2165]

i prefer the weaopn at 3:02min

 

 

Hope flaregun from DayZ will work like a flaregun from Blood.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Frosti

[Murlough 192]

I would not want them in not realistic and if they are anything like real life the flamethrower is more of a danger to the player than whatever it is trying to burn.

How the hell are flamethrowers unrealistic? They seem pretty real to me. (sorry if im reading wrong).

[Guest]

Hope flaregun from DayZ will work like a flaregun from Blood.

 

hell yeh!!

 

[blunce 991]

Supersoaker + gasoline + zippo

[gibonez 3633]

How the hell are flamethrowers unrealistic? They seem pretty real to me. (sorry if im reading wrong).

 

Unrealistic in a sense of who bloody has one anymore ?

 

It really does not have a role in any type of warfare anymore .

 

It is also unrealistic in a sense of why would a survivor bother using a heavy, silly weapon like a flamethrower ? A weapon that he would not only not find but if by some miracle he did find would not work as all the rubber gaskets would have surely dried up after decades of exposure to fuel.

[MarchHare 184]

Holy crap!! Choked on my juice was laughing so hard!!

 

Edit: @Frosti.

 

Quote function still not working on my home desktop.

Edited July 2, 2014 by MarchHare

[Murlough 192]

Unrealistic in a sense of who bloody has one anymore ?

It really does not have a role in any type of warfare anymore .

It is also unrealistic in a sense of why would a survivor bother using a heavy, silly weapon like a flamethrower ? A weapon that he would not only not find but if by some miracle he did find would not work as all the rubber gaskets would have surely dried up after decades of exposure to fuel.

Ah. I assumed you meant unrealistic as in it didnt exist. My apologies. But i would think it would be heavily used by pyscho bandit RPers. Plus it would be cool as shit.

But i understand and respect the fact that "for the lols" is not what this game is meant to be so i will agree nay on adding flamethrowers.

[gibonez 3633]

Ah. I assumed you meant unrealistic as in it didnt exist. My apologies. But i would think it would be heavily used by pyscho bandit RPers. Plus it would be cool as shit.

But i understand and respect the fact that "for the lols" is not what this game is meant to be so i will agree nay on adding flamethrowers.

 

I am not opposed to a "realistic" form of a flame thrower aka Spray paint  + matches = mini flamethrower but the old ww2 gasoline tank on your back flame thrower would be too obscure.

[Murlough 192]

I am not opposed to a "realistic" form of a flame thrower aka Spray paint + matches = mini flamethrower but the old ww2 gasoline tank on your back flame thrower would be too obscure.

That would be pretty cool actually. Kinda screams "bandit" too. Im all for that lol.

[UltimateGentleman 355]

I'd like the option but I'm not sure what use it would be other than for lols like using the defibrillator in Battlefield to kill people, spray can flamethrower I mean.

It could be a good torture method I guess but it's kinda useless, maybe to burn bases down?

 

As for fire + zombie = deadly flaming zombies that makes no sense these aren't magical zombies if they're muscles were burnt off they wouldn't be able to walk any more.

Fire is only sometimes ineffective in movies realistically against non supernatural zombies it would work fine, there would maybe be a minute or two of a burning zombie doing some extra damage to you.

 

With their noses burning off and their eyes boiling they're not going to be very dangerous for long unless they have ESP...

[ForceRecon (DayZ) 10]

Unrealistic in a sense of who bloody has one anymore ?

 

It really does not have a role in any type of warfare anymore .

 

It is also unrealistic in a sense of why would a survivor bother using a heavy, silly weapon like a flamethrower ? A weapon that he would not only not find but if by some miracle he did find would not work as all the rubber gaskets would have surely dried up after decades of exposure to fuel.

What the hell do you mean? It still has a use in modern warfare. It was just banned by the Geneva Convention. That's why we created the M-202 to replace it as our incendiary weapon. Fire is an essential part of warfare and always will be. Also seeing as how the zombies in this game aren't dead but more like the ones from 28 days later, then yes fire would be extremely effective as it burns the sense of one which would render its motor skills obsolete. Fire is and always will be a deadly weapon to anything and everything.

[-Gews- 7443]

It was just banned by the Geneva Convention.

Nah, not banned, they just don't have a need for them. The last new US flamethrower came out in 1956... Soviet 1968... who uses flamethrowers these days? Sure there's a couple but can't think of any armies offhand. They have thermobaric rocket launchers and laser-guided airstrikes and such...

[ForceRecon (DayZ) 10]

Nah, not banned, they just don't have a need for them. The last new US flamethrower came out in 1956... Soviet 1968... who uses flamethrowers these days? Sure there's a couple but can't think of any armies offhand. They have thermobaric rocket launchers and laser-guided airstrikes and such...

Yes they were banned because it was considered torture as people died slowly. The same debate is being brought up about .50 cals and other high caliber rifles that can blow limbs off. And flamethrowers are still the best method for clearing out bunkers and trenches on foot even with our new explosives. The reason, a projected flame is not a solid object. It forms to the item around it. When there is a little slit in a cement bunker it would be hard to shoot a target in there and almost any handheld launcher (Javelin excluded) would have a hard time penetrating it. A flame would go through it with ease. Flame also curves around corners.

 

We also used flame to burn forest and paths down to corner and trap an enemy or form a wall of protection. Fire is truly a powerful weapon and should be implemented as a flamethrower. Plus, seeing as how it is an apocalypse, a flamethrower can be built from parts around a house and other building. It would be another improvised weapon. Hell it could use those propane tanks (although you wouldn't get much use out of those small things; it would balance it.)

[Sirwarriant12 94]

I would be all for it honestly as long as it was balanced and could blow up and only gave you a few bursts of flames. I can see multiple uses for it in the game such as people being barricaded inside a building, sneaking up on people in cars burning them out. They should be a hazard to everyone though, the operator and his pals included. If some idiots stand too close to someone with a flame thrower and the flame thrower tanks get shot they better all be flailing around screaming and burning. They need to be very dangerous to operate as well as difficult to maintain.

[blissandpanic 92]

Not much of a suggestion as I just wanted some feedback on what people thought about this. In DayZ, I often run into gas canisters that I don't pick up because I honestly don't see a use for them. But what if it could be used as ammunition for a flame thrower? Flame throwers could be used to burn buildings, set fields of tall grass on fire, forest fires and so many more things. Of course the only way of using it would be to find the flame thrower and then to find gas canisters to fill up the tank. Alternatively you could fill it up at a gas station but in a zombie apocalypse I would imagine everyone would have taken all of the gas to drive off far away.

Here is a list of pros and cons the flame thrower could have

Pros:

1) Burns players to death easily

2) Easily for taking out hoards of zombies

3) Sets stuff on fire, changing the game play of the map

 

Cons:

1) Destroys items the victim is carrying

2) May be hard to find a lot of gas to be used often

3) Would be heavy to carry around

4) If another player shot your gas tank on your back, it would either end in an explosion or gas leaking out.

 

something like this could be made..

 

 

OR this, though i would not recommend the clothes for safety reasons-

 

 

--- oh! who am i kidding, shes hot! 

*pun intended  ;)

[EvilTigerAce 131]

There's nothing unrealistic about flamethrowers.

 

I would like them if they were in the game.

 

Especially if you realize that using it is dangerous too, because

 

1) If someone hits your gas can you are dead

2) The range of a flamethrower won't beat a gun

 

I love the idea.

[archamedes 238]

flame throwers? Why the fuck not? Throw in a BFG from doom 2 & a particle cannon from Command and conquer while you're at it. Why not add in some mech warriors too, really make Dayz stand out. Or try to concentrate a bit more on useful non weaponized items or a barricading system.

[BadAsh (DayZ) 1513]

There's nothing unrealistic about flamethrowers.

 

Except of course for the problems already mentioned in this thread, mainly the fact that you wouldn't be able to find a working flamethrower anywhere.

[Esccapee 45]

You can DYI a flamethrower if you're any good at welding or metalworking. It's not that safe by any means, buy all you really need is a fuel tank(as in to store fuel i.e on your back ala ww2 flamethrowers), a pump to pump the fuel and a source of ignition.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Esccapee

[frosti 2165]

There's nothing unrealistic about flamethrowers.

 

I would like them if they were in the game.

 

Especially if you realize that using it is dangerous too, because

 

1) If someone hits your gas can you are dead

2) The range of a flamethrower won't beat a gun

 

I love the idea.

 

Actually exploding fire extinguisher, barrels and flamethrowers are Holywood and videogames ficton. I saw it in Mythbusters.

 

Only way that you can do something close to what you see in Holywood movies to flamethrower would be hiting directly in the cable.

 

Or you would had to use gatling gun.