Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Fire Stack Timeout
DrTentacles:
Not sure why we need a fire nerf, considering that Chem Spray already pretty much removes the danger of fire stakes, leaving only it's direct damage to contend with. This just seems like it pretty much removes any possibility of hit and run tactics with fire.
Sprayer:
So how do you explain fires caused by weapons other than the flamethrower hamster? I agree with anyone saying fire does not need to be nerfed any more. Only about half (or less?) of the ships can not effectively be kept chemsprayed.
HamsterIV:
--- Quote from: Sprayer on October 16, 2014, 04:30:42 pm ---So how do you explain fires caused by weapons other than the flamethrower hamster? I agree with anyone saying fire does not need to be nerfed any more. Only about half (or less?) of the ships can not effectively be kept chemsprayed.
--- End quote ---
Incendiary rounds have some fuel component that can be long burning.
Explosive ammo weapons can also carry some slow burning fuels that get spread about after the charge is set off.
GOI isn't know for its slavish adherence to the laws of physics so it doesn't really matter what the real life equivalent of the game mechanic is.
From a game play perspective I find this interesting because flame locking a ship becomes more difficult if the fire stacks go out after time. For a crew to pull off a flame thrower kill the pilot must keep the enemy ship in range of the flamethrower for the duration.
This system would also open up new options for the engineers. Right now if you are a chem engie and a component gets 17 stack of fire on it the best action is to leave it alone until it is fully destroyed, then rebuild it. If the stack timeout mechanic were implemented it would become viable to mallet the component to keep it up at partial health until the the timeout occurs. Thus the engineer has to choose between a component at partial health vs the component being down for a bit then coming back at full health. This consequences of this decision could be different if the attacking ship gets into flame range again.
There is no way to tell if this is a good idea or not until it has been subjected to play testing, but color me intrigued.
Battle Toads:
If the burn out rate was no shorter than a minute, I can see this working as most engagements will be finished by then, so it means it is easier for a ship to repair after winning/surviving a fight. If it is really short then it serves as a huge nerf to fire, as now doing nothing becomes a possible counter measure to flames
Richard LeMoon:
Now that some people have discussed this a bit, I shall give my original reason:
Gunner buff. If fires will put themselves out eventually, gunners become more desirable.
As for the length of burn out, that would have to be tested and balanced.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version