Main > Gameplay
1.3.3 ENGINEER AND REPAIR TOOL BALANCE
Sammy B. T.:
--- Quote from: awkm on October 30, 2013, 11:24:20 am ---
The extinguisher is meant to be a reactionary tool. You see fire, you go over to extinguish it no matter how many charges there are. If you don't respond, you are penalized by the DPS that fire does. The problem was that if you respond successfully, during its cooldown (where you can't respond any more) you can accumulate more stacks. Not being able to respond in this situation denies the player of their intended play style.
--- End quote ---
If your ship is sitting in a flamer, a fire extinguisher shouldn't be cutting it anyway. The captain needs to get rid of the flames or move.
Also the same rationale for the immunity could be used for all repair tools. I respond perfectly to armor damage, I shouldn't be penalized by more damage while I wait for my mallet cooldown. I guess I don't see why fire damage is seen as such a threat that it makes sense to give its tools cooldown immunity.
The tools were fine before though chem was underpowered. The fire extinguisher was unworthy of a buff and I don't understand why there is a desire to rework a whole system that wasn't broke.
Serenum:
--- Quote from: The Djinn on October 30, 2013, 01:09:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: awkm on October 30, 2013, 11:24:20 am ---Now the question is, what changes can be made to make prevention feel more like prevention? I think extinguisher is right now.
--- End quote ---
Here's a thought:
What if the Chem Spray had a much longer duration, but instead of providing blanket immunity or percentile reduction instead prevented the next X stacks of fire on the element in question? It allows an Engineer to prep multiple parts before combat and still do his job in combat (repairing where necessary instead of running around chem-spraying everything repeatedly), while making it so that large fire offensives require an Engineer with an Extinguisher to really deal with.
In a case like this I'd lower it's cooldown to 2-3 seconds (and maybe reduce it's power to only removing 2 stacks), but only apply the preventative buff when there are no fire stacks on the component already: that keeps it feeling good for preventative purposes, but bad for reactive use.
Of course, this would probably require a new graphic for Chem-Sprayed components, possibly with a number indicator (or color-shifting indicator) to show how close the Chem Spray is to being removed. This would allow attentive and quick-to-act Engineers to keep the part safe by refreshing the Chem Spray before it actually gains fire stacks. Once the fire has actually breached the protection, however, the Chem Spray is strictly worse than the Extinguisher.
So something like this...
Chem Spray
Extinguishing Power: 2
Cooldown: 2
Special: Applies a fire shield to non-ignited components for up to 2 minutes. The first 8 stacks of fire damage that component would take are negated. Once 8 stacks of fire damage have been negated, the buff is removed.
--- End quote ---
I like the sound of that, if it was doable it would certanly give the Chem Spray its place.
I have to agree with Sammy B.T. though, protecting component from damage shouldn't be thought as the exclusive responsability of the engineer, if the ship is under fire then it's the pilot's responsability to move away, otherwise you keep on reciving more stacks of fire then you are putting off.
So just like with the mallet I don't see taking more damage while on cooldown as a flaw, it's just a consequence of not being able to move away.
awkm:
I don't think Djinn's proposal is a good one. It becomes a UI complexity. How do we display how many charges it absorbed? The answer is simple, but the UI becomes cluttered. It's not elegant.
While the same arguments can be made for repair tools, there is indeed some overlap, however the game you play is not prevention vs. reaction. With repairs it's cooldown time management. It's slightly different and therefore I feel it's okay for take damage while cooling down. This is because most engineers will have two repair tools with them, you are able to choose how you respond. You don't carry two extinguishers with you, that choice is made before the match starts so you are locked in to how you respond to fire for the rest of the match.
Serenum:
Could be displayed by a number or indicator on each component when you look at them directly, just like the buff meter.
The Djinn:
--- Quote from: awkm on October 30, 2013, 02:08:03 pm ---I don't think Djinn's proposal is a good one. It becomes a UI complexity. How do we display how many charges it absorbed? The answer is simple, but the UI becomes cluttered. It's not elegant.
--- End quote ---
If the issue is UI complexity and you think the mechanic is sound, I can think of a few ways to resolve that. The first would be to make it only visible upon being close to the component: it would be a simple matter to add a small number indicator to the part itself, although this would require the Engineer to check up on his Chem Spray a little more often (which would be a good thing, overall, as it would reward awareness and proactive work). The UI clutter would be exceedingly minimal, as you'd only see the indicator when close enough to actually see the component's interface. That's a very minimal change in the UI.
Another option is to actually use the Buff Bar for Chem Spray indication: a blue column shows bars of protection remaining, with whichever bar (buff or spray) is lower taking forward priority on the display so both are visible simultaneously. Probably a worse option overall though.
A third option is to not display the number precisely, but have Chem Sprayed components show up as a different color when you get close to them, gradually fading back to their original color as the buff fades.
These are all off the top of my head, of course: I might be tempted to photoshop up a few mock-ups to see how little UI alteration I can make this require. I do, however, feel the first approach would be an exceedingly minimal UI complication in exchange for what I feel is a very solidly proactive fire-prevention mechanic. Did you approve of the mechanic itself? Or was the UI critique merely a part of a larger issue with the concept?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version