The flame thrower makes you move slow and you have to carry a heavy tanker on the back of you which if shot explodes and kills surrounding players and blocks...

No.

I can see two differences between this idea and the shotgun (which has been confirmed, more or less). One is that the shotgun would be more fun, and the other is that the shotgun isn't an obvious rip-off of Team Fortress

i did not even think about team fortress ive only played team fortress on xbox...

i got the idea from metro's gun pack (heavy gun pack)

but i suppose your right...

Whether or not you actually got the idea from Team Fortress won't matter. People would take it that way if it got added to the game, and it just wouldn't be fun.

"One is that the shotgun would be more fun, and the other is that the shotgun isn't an obvious rip-off of Team Fortress"

dude havent you heard? were ripping team fortress by adding a shotty! it makes perfect sense! (when using your logic)

anyways seeing as shotty already will have close range covered, i dont think we need a flamethrower.

@Fluttershy: The difference is that shotguns are pretty common in just about every shooter as well as real life, so it's impossible to put a shotgun down to a single source. Flamethrowers are also fairly common in other shooters, but not so much in real life. Add to that that KwF's idea bore a stronger resmeblance to the implementation from Team Fortress and it just seems crass.

THe biggest reason I'm opposed, though, is yours: The shotgun should have the effective range of a flamethrower pretty well covered. I think the dynamic of having one weapon for long ranges, one for medium ranges, and one for short ranges has a lot of potential.

did he say it should have a secondary airblast that knocks away grenades and extinguishes allys? hows this similar AT ALL to the pyro minus fire?

(i just looked it up, the pyro doesnt have an explodable gas tank, once again pushing this further away from it)

Mostly it jumped out at me because he suggested the pyro should move more slowly, and differeing movement speeds for different classes/armament is something that isn't in all mainstream shooters but is in Team Fortress... (as far as I know, CoD only offers different speeds through the ability to have your avatar never run out of sprinting ability).

But KwF claimed it wasn't a blatant theft from TF anyways, so that probably explains why it isn't totally similar.

this would clearly be a griefer weapon and if u shot them to teamkill them it would kill everyone around them not a good idea

actually after looking this up more, if using a liquid fuel flamethrowers could actually have a pretty far range and could create a stream of fire that trails down bunkers and whatnot, that sounds pretty cool, plus it seems that the tanks dont actually explode like they do in the movies.

Every fps is a ripoff real life.

why are we so unoriginal ;-;

Lets turn aos into a first person sims.

No, very few shooters are actually anything like real-life combat. The Operation Flashpoint and ARMA-series games do a pretty good job according to most reviews (I've never been in real combat, so I wouldn't know... I do know that the guns are second only to actual IRL guns in terms of realism). CoD is pathetically unrealistic, and Team Fortress is pretty clearly designed to be fun rather than real.

k.
All first person shooters are based on guns, that were invented in real life, if they werent invented, all we would have is first person mario, so yeah, first person shooters are based on real life.

Yeah, but some, like ARMA, are closer to a true copy of real life, which is what a rip-off is. CoD is more like "vaguely inspired by" real life.