Main > Gameplay

Fire Extinguisher - your opinion?

<< < (6/7) > >>

Squidslinger Gilder:
There is nothing wrong with extinguisher. I actually insist on having at least 1 per ship due to chem cycle interrupting which happens. Plan ahead. Heck I don't want chem on any squid I fly currently because it just isn't worth having one person running around like a horny rabbit. Repairs have to be fast and it is too easy to lag off a squid jumping from engines. So I take away the risk factor and just rely on pilot tools. I can chute or evade fast enough to negate a flame arc so all extinguish and engineers on guns or stations for quick repairs is better than having a squid chemmed.

If anything Chem is too strong. Timer needs to be reduced from 25 sec to 15-20. It should not be an end all solution to fire. Put that in with current Extinguisher, problem solved.

pandatopia:

--- Quote from: Gilder Unfettered on August 21, 2014, 10:01:01 pm ---If anything Chem is too strong. Timer needs to be reduced from 25 sec to 15-20. It should not be an end all solution to fire. Put that in with current Extinguisher, problem solved.

--- End quote ---

No that is an awful idea. Noone likes being on the receiving end of a flamer and it is the only gun in the game that can reliably hit pretty much every component on a ship, disable guns without destroying them (this is WORSE than destroying guns - the gunner cannot rebuild so you end up with even more downtime. And then there are the gunners that repair the useless gun when you have no engies nearby), and do insane hull and balloon damage if left to stack.

The chem spray is already a huge drawback - long cooldown and only 3 stack removal. It is only in the highest levels of play where you see chem being applied correctly - DURING additional pressure from another gun or teammate.

Anyone can chem spray - it is more difficult to spray only when needed and repair/rebuild as well.

Chem is in a good place right now.

I'm okay with extinguisher being slightly better - I want it so that more engies can bring mallet/spanner/buff instead of everyone bringing a fire fighting kit.

Sammy B. T.:
There are three phases of thinking about fires.

1. Flames are OP, I can't keep up with the flamers
2. Chem spray OP, I see now a good cycle can save my ship
3. The purpose of flames is to weaken repair capability through forcing good cheming

I feel like most people don't get to the third phase. Complaining that chem spray makes flamers useless is akin to saying that shifting spanners make Gatling useless because armor can just be rebuilt. You're looking at a gun alone.

Now lets look at repairs by the numbers!

A rubber mallet repairs 250 damage and has a 9 second cool down. This means a good engineer has an average repair per second (rps) of 27.78. Without need to chem spray, this remains constant.

Now lets introduce a flamer. Now because we know that chem lasts for 25 seconds we can give the optimal repair capability of 2 mallet hits for every 1 chem spray. 1 to 1 is too much chem spray and 1 to 3 leaves a hole in which flames can get in. So we need to expand our rps formula

18 seconds from 2 mallets
5 seconds from 1 chem spray

500 repair for an 23 second cooldown gives us 21.74 rps

For reference, a pipe wrench with its 120 repair and 5 second cool down gives us 24 rps and the shifting spanner with its 40 repair and 2 second cool down is 20 rps

What this means is that even with good chem cycles you've reduced good mallet engineering to something worse than a pipe wrench and barely better than a spanner.

On top of that you're making the enemy crew work harder and make them more prone to mistakes or missing gunning chance.

TL;DR just cause a ship isn't on fire, doesn't mean its not suffering.

Mr.Bando:
I dunno. Chemspray buys up to 25 seconds for the ship under flamer attack where flame stacks cannot interrupt and nullify repair, disable weapons, reduce engine function, inflict psychological shock and of course its effects on balloon and armour. Pulling the teeth out of one of the enemies guns while reducing your repair capability seems to be a half decent trade off. You are preventing damage to multiple components after all.

If I were to suggest nerfing chemspray, I might probably make the spray last 30 seconds, no cooldown sharing or a short one, but give it a -95% chance of ignition rather than -100% of complete flamer immunity and reduce its stack removal capability to just 1 stack per application. Give fires from a flamer a chance to occur but at a manageable level and still be detrimental to a ships repair capability.

If may also give captains a better return on their risk if they decide to load 2 flamers on their ship.

Thomas:
I feel the extinguisher still has a role in most matches, but it's often overshadowed by other tools. Most competitive teams straight up use chemical spray because they're organized and practiced enough to keep that up near constantly and nullify any type of fire. Things start getting out of hand when combat goes on for a while, things break and need repaired, too busy trying to keep the engines up as the captain burns through phoenix claw and tar. That's when the chem spray drops and when fire extinguisher would be a huge advantage. That moment the chem spray goes away and the flamer shows up to set everything 10-20 stacks.

It's more common for it to be useful in non-competitive matches, where keeping the chemical spray up and running is even more difficult because you don't have the organization and practice of a competitive team. So while chemical spray is ideal, it will eventually fail and a fire extinguisher will be needed. Having both is pretty important for pub matches.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page