Posted on 19 February 2015 - 08:39 AM

Any time an SG server pops up these days, they seem to always include the classic SG flint and steel. (or fire charges.) I'm going to be honest though, I don't think it should be a part of SG anymore. Heck, I don't think it should have been added to the MCSG ladder either, but that's another story and more of my opinion than anything.

Firstly, I should say I'm not being entirely fair here. Some of my reason for disliking flint and steel is just because I don't like being set on fire and how majorly it effects me, and that I don't personally enjoy using it much either, I've never really learned since I ceased all usage of macros a long while back, and honestly I never intend to learn either…

However…

I don't really think flint and steel adds anything to the game in the first place.

Whenever I know flint and steel is present, I know one thing: Approaching melee is dangerous, no matter how far ahead I am of my opponent in health, because all it takes is his fire in the afterlife to bring me down that last little bit, or let me be finished off by that other guy nearby.

While this sounds like a great risk versus reward mechanic, discouraging going on too much of a rampage when ahead by increasing the risk of doing so, it ultimately fails to provide so in a meaningful way. Quite often, it punishes not only the person on a rampage, but the player who lit the fire himself, if he was not careful to avoid damage in the process, as some newer players aren't, and in the event this was not the case, it's putting a lot of power into the hands of an otherwise weak player, making the collection of gear through chests less important than it maybe should be.
Surely, this is why flint and steel is limited usage. The problem is that you cannot reliably bait out the fire safely, so either you go all in and take the risk, or you stall out the fight as you dance around their feet. Have you seen how the 4-man deathmatches go sometimes? There is no incentive to be the aggressor, because being the guy to jump into a fight first, even against the easy small targets, is incredibly risky, which is only made far worse by the presence of the fire, putting into the hands of completely naked players the power to ruin your day, to ultimately no benefit their own, only the benefit of the player cowering in a corner, a type of play that shouldn't ever be too heavily encouraged.

Beyond that, fire just seems…mechanically flawed. As of recent, I've heard and witnessed instances of it completely "negating" knockback when a player on fire is hit at the wrong time, and while a likely fixable bug, this makes setting a player on fire unreliable. In a knockback oriented melee combat system, every instance of knockback I cannot predict or expect, or a lack thereof, is a big deal. Given how unpredictable it is, I neither want to be the guy on fire or the guy fighting the guy on fire…at least not in SG, where every little "mistake" can very quickly cost you your entire game.
Regarding the non-bug problems, the way it anchors you to the ground every time it ticks you is annoying imo and another thing to throw into the "unreliable knockback" category, shoving you straight down in the middle of an importing melee combat moment…it's impossible to keep track of and predict in the middle of melee combat and makes melee unpredictable, unreliable, and undesired…
All of these knockback problems happen when in fact you want melee combat, at the exact moment you were likely rushing down your opponent. I know I never find it fun to be set on fire, and honestly, as I consider myself enough of a "skilled player" to see the knockback inconsistencies, I'm not much more of a fan of fighting others on fire either. The only person I always want to be in these exchanges is the guy uninvolved, reaping the benefits of others leaving themselves weak for me to finish off, and I don't feel that's the guy who should benefit from it at all. This is only farther encouraging the kind of play I see so often in the deathmatch: Nobody wants to be the aggressor, leading to what's essentially "stalemates" and a game of "avoid the idiot" in the deathmatch arena.

Finally, I have a legitimate question to ask: Was the addition of the flint and steel really thought about all that much? I'm really curious what people think it's adding to the game. More depth/complexity? (which imo sg has plenty of without it) More risk to melee aggressors? Just for the sake of being familiar to SG players? Really, I'm curious of other people's thoughts on the roll of fire in SG. Maybe there is something I'm not seeing, because honestly, I don't really get the point of it.

Posted on 19 February 2015 - 10:10 AM

tldr: I dont like fns and its not fair to newer people , it can cost me the fight nor do I like fighting people on fire.


no

Posted on 19 February 2015 - 04:40 PM

Nobody knows how to dodge a flint & steel? It adds reflexes to the game, making you more aware of what your opponent has and is going to use. Now, I definitely agree with you considering that the kb that comes with being on fire is buggy. I personally love using FnS, but the only way I can use it is if I get the opponent on fire and run away. It's just a mechanic to get them low. Now if it were my choice, I'd say make the FnS less frequent in BSG.

Just my opinion

Posted on 19 February 2015 - 07:43 PM

not to mention the lag cause by FnS for that split second (idk might just be me with my craptop)

Posted on 21 February 2015 - 12:56 AM

I personally think fns adds to the SG game. You can be low and do a 180 fns then keep running and eventually kill them. It's all apart of the game. But, In vanilla Minecraft you can jump over fire. But in BLSG you cannot. I think this should be changed BUT it would be an OP way to lite someone on fire.