The difference is that if a Fleshpound runs straight into your team, if you run away for a bit without dying, it'll calm down again and you can survive, unlike the Scrake who will relentlessly murder you. The thing is that it's so easy to cancel their rage by running away long enough and losing line of sight that you can pretty much kite them just like Scrakes. Theoretically, the fact that Fleshpounds enrage on their own is probably supposed to make them more of a threat, because it means you can't just kite them. In KF1 I had more deaths to FPs than anything else. In my head the flesh pound should be worse. I feel scrakes are tougher at the moment than flesh pounds. I just wanted to share my opinion here in this thread. Because they never stop, they can wreck your team very quickly. I have seen many a thread from players who are complaining scrakes are way too OP. Scrakes enrage after taking damage, which means they can be somewhat easily kited if you avoid shooting them, but they never stop. Both seem to deal similar amounts of damage (except you can circle-strafe Scrakes, which I honestly hope they don't keep in the game, it feels kind of stupid and makes the much less reliable parrying mechanic useless by comparison) and eat similar amounts of bullets (which seems odd, Fleshpounds were much tankier relative to Scrakes in KF1, weren't they?). I think that the issue with Scrakes is the way their damage and HP combines with the way they rage.
