Is the Scorcher Overrated?

[Zet395]

So, I finally unlocked the last weapon of the base game Warbond. I now have every weapon. I've been through the good, the bad, and the so-far-beyond-terrible-I-don't-even-know-how-it-came-out-the-way-it-did tier stuff. Something I always found consistent, though, is the amount of times I've seen people put the Breaker, Scorcher and SMG as the kings of weapons. (The Breaker and Scorcher more-so. SMG is hit or miss with the community it seems.)

Excited, I put it to the test, and the warnings I got were not missed. Ammo goes fast, mag capacity isn't the best, and splash damage can also kill you in a bad situation of enemies being up close. So, basically, never use it against bugs is what I got from that. However, over my time of using it, I came across a lot of flaws. First, I was told you can kill Striders from the front. With testing, you can, but I usually kill them in 2 to 3 hits. Why not use a railgun? I was told you can hit through the shields of the heavy robots. You can, but I have yet to be able to hit their eyes, which kill them the quickest. Why not use a railgun?

Don't get me wrong, it can still be good against small stuff, but at that point, why not just use the shotguns? They're strong, a tad more ammo efficient, and won't kill you if things are in your face -- if anything, it becomes better when they're in your face. By all means, if somebody helps me see the light, I welcome it with open arms, but someone please tell me if I'm right or wrong.

[Chocbomb]

Scorcher from the players eyes:

• Takes over 1200+ medals to acquire.
  
• Its damage is good.
  
• It will kill you if used in close range.
  
• It will kill your team in 1 shot.
  
• Has a small clip.
  
• You spend alot of the time reloading.
  
• Enemies have a delayed death, you will use more ammunition on every enemy.
  
• It's cross-hair is tiny, you will miss.
  
• Shooting, it sounds like im microwaving popcorn.
  
• Underrated range.

[Buntkreuz]

So like anything else, it has its uses, BUT...

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Chocbomb:

Scorcher from the players eyes:

• Takes over 1200+ medals to acquire.
  
• Its damage is good.
  
• It will kill you if used in close range.
  
• It will kill your team in 1 shot.
  
• Has a small clip.
  
• You spend alot of the time reloading.
  
• Enemies have a delayed death, you will use more ammunition on every enemy.
  
• It's cross-hair is tiny, you will miss.
  
• Shooting, it sounds like im microwaving popcorn.
  
• Underrated range.

"But it does more damage than the spray n pray, which is also overpowered, so no fair calling it bad or you are a meta slave!"
*shoots bug, bug lives, teammate on other side of bug dies*
"Well, you see... That is clearly skill issues."

[Drunken Weirdo]

Good gun, the AOE can work even on harder to hit enemies like devastators, generally nice to have but dont depend on it or if it gets changed you will whine like a baby for months before coming to terms (If).

[Zet395]

Originally posted by Drunken Weirdo:

Good gun, the AOE can work even on harder to hit enemies like devastators, generally nice to have but dont depend on it or if it gets changed you will whine like a baby for months before coming to terms (If).

I don't want people to get me wrong here. This isn't a complaint post, this is just me asking a genuine question. I want to gather the thoughts of others to see if it's more worth it than my experience has let on so far.

[Khloros]

No its actually that good.
It can 2 tap raiders, it stun locks devastators, can AOE kill bugs, can 1 tap hunters, it can destroy spore spewers from across the map. It can kill tanks in a magazine as well.

If you feed it ammo its a monster of a weapon, take a back pack with it and you can comfortably run it as the only weapon you need outside of heavy armor.

[Drunken Weirdo]

Originally posted by Zet395:

Originally posted by Drunken Weirdo:

Good gun, the AOE can work even on harder to hit enemies like devastators, generally nice to have but dont depend on it or if it gets changed you will whine like a baby for months before coming to terms (If).

I don't want people to get me wrong here. This isn't a complaint post, this is just me asking a genuine question. I want to gather the thoughts of others to see if it's more worth it than my experience has let on so far.

No worries, I am used to it, I managed to flabbergast some folks who considered the recoilless useless because it took to many shots to kill things **IF** you did not aim at the proper spot or weak spot, like how if you aim at the head (closer to the mouth) you can two shot chargers and 3 shot Bile Titans, meanwhile for tanks and tank turrets usually 1 or two shots is needed to outright blast it, If shot in the exhaust in the back. All the weapons actually have more things hidden in em but modern CoD or most modern games kinda ♥♥♥♥♥♥ their minds into making em stat monkeys (specially retarded youtube preachers).

[Zet395]

Originally posted by Khloros:

No its actually that good.
It can 2 tap raiders, it stun locks devastators, can AOE kill bugs, can 1 tap hunters, it can destroy spore spewers from across the map. It can kill tanks in a magazine as well.

If you feed it ammo its a monster of a weapon, take a back pack with it and you can comfortably run it as the only weapon you need outside of heavy armor.

Okay, but that's a lot of ammo usage, when you can probably do most of that in half the time with the railgun. Can you really say it's better than it? As an example, why stunlock Devastators when you can kill it instantly with a railgun?

[Drunken Weirdo]

I wanna see the next update to see how the gun Philosophy will really go, its going to truly decide how the game will work, so I aint too worried now.

[Khloros]

Originally posted by Zet395:

Originally posted by Khloros:

No its actually that good.
It can 2 tap raiders, it stun locks devastators, can AOE kill bugs, can 1 tap hunters, it can destroy spore spewers from across the map. It can kill tanks in a magazine as well.

If you feed it ammo its a monster of a weapon, take a back pack with it and you can comfortably run it as the only weapon you need outside of heavy armor.

Okay, but that's a lot of ammo usage, when you can probably do most of that in half the time with the railgun. Can you really say it's better than it? As an example, why stunlock Devastators when you can kill it instantly with a railgun?

You just take the ammo pack. the more you play the more you find you dont need the shield, and with the ammo pack feeding the plas 1 you can play really aggressively and take things out before they even become and issue.

Its on par with the rail gun in terms of its flexability. it does not replace the rail gun, but using the plas 1 + an ammo pack makes you use the rail gun a lot less. Since i started running railgun ammo pack plas 1 the only time the rail gun comes out is for tower hulks, and AA turrets.

In regards to the devestator, its not a matter of thats just a functionality of it. If you round a corner and a devestator is about to unload on you, you can just pop it 3 or 4 times and get into cover.

[Zet395]

Originally posted by Drunken Weirdo:

I wanna see the next update to see how the gun Philosophy will really go, its going to truly decide how the game will work, so I aint too worried now.

I'm really excited, honestly. I'd love to see more guns, strats and all that. I can't wait to try it all out, and see how they're going to rebalance things. To my understanding, the CEO says they're going to rebalance weapons in ways other than damage. What that means can mean anything per weapon.

[Drunken Weirdo]

Originally posted by Zet395:

Originally posted by Khloros:

No its actually that good.
It can 2 tap raiders, it stun locks devastators, can AOE kill bugs, can 1 tap hunters, it can destroy spore spewers from across the map. It can kill tanks in a magazine as well.

If you feed it ammo its a monster of a weapon, take a back pack with it and you can comfortably run it as the only weapon you need outside of heavy armor.

Okay, but that's a lot of ammo usage, when you can probably do most of that in half the time with the railgun. Can you really say it's better than it? As an example, why stunlock Devastators when you can kill it instantly with a railgun?

If there are a few devs you can railshot em with one good shot in the pelvis or head, However when you have more then 6 at you, rocket and heavy devastators its very hard to shoot em down when you are pelted left and right, tanks can take up to 10-12 shots to kill and unless you use a Supply Pack you will be wasting a lot of Railgun shots to kill things but that can be applied to many other weapons, even with the recoilless if you want to be efficient you need precision and patience, under heavy stress or fire it wont work well.

[Zet395]

Originally posted by Khloros:

Originally posted by Zet395:

Okay, but that's a lot of ammo usage, when you can probably do most of that in half the time with the railgun. Can you really say it's better than it? As an example, why stunlock Devastators when you can kill it instantly with a railgun?

You just take the ammo pack. the more you play the more you find you dont need the shield, and with the ammo pack feeding the plas 1 you can play really aggressively and take things out before they even become and issue.

Its on par with the rail gun in terms of its flexability. it does not replace the rail gun, but using the plas 1 + an ammo pack makes you use the rail gun a lot less. Since i started running railgun ammo pack plas 1 the only time the rail gun comes out is for tower hulks, and AA turrets.

Well, I suppose that's fair. I will have to test a bit more. I am just hesitant, because that's a strat used up by my primary and a strat used up by my railgun.

[Dord :---DD]

Originally posted by Drunken Weirdo:

Originally posted by Zet395:

I don't want people to get me wrong here. This isn't a complaint post, this is just me asking a genuine question. I want to gather the thoughts of others to see if it's more worth it than my experience has let on so far.

No worries, I am used to it, I managed to flabbergast some folks who considered the recoilless useless because it took to many shots to kill things **IF** you did not aim at the proper spot or weak spot, like how if you aim at the head (closer to the mouth) you can two shot chargers and 3 shot Bile Titans, meanwhile for tanks and tank turrets usually 1 or two shots is needed to outright blast it, If shot in the exhaust in the back. All the weapons actually have more things hidden in em but modern CoD or most modern games kinda ♥♥♥♥♥♥ their minds into making em stat monkeys (specially retarded youtube preachers).

2 shot chargers with a recoilless, meanwhile railgun can do that and get a quarter of its rounds back from common mission ammo pick ups, and while loading faster, and while being more versatile, and while having higher ammo economy and a larger use case. Railgun can 3 shot bile titans, too, and without only having 2 shots left to deal with 3 chargers, and while being able to reload on the move, not even comparing it to the arc thrower which can do everything I have listed but also have infinite ammo while piercing through enemies.

Recoilless is garbage.

[Khloros]

Originally posted by Zet395:

Originally posted by Khloros:

You just take the ammo pack. the more you play the more you find you dont need the shield, and with the ammo pack feeding the plas 1 you can play really aggressively and take things out before they even become and issue.

Its on par with the rail gun in terms of its flexability. it does not replace the rail gun, but using the plas 1 + an ammo pack makes you use the rail gun a lot less. Since i started running railgun ammo pack plas 1 the only time the rail gun comes out is for tower hulks, and AA turrets.

Well, I suppose that's fair. I will have to test a bit more. I am just hesitant, because that's a strat used up by my primary and a strat used up by my railgun.

Its worth it, dont sleep on taht supply pack, it gives you so much, not just ammo, but grenades and stims as well. it keeps you in fights way WAY longer.