Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Chemical Spray

<< < (2/3) > >>

DJ Logicalia:
Chem spray isn't over powered, why would you nerf it? If you don't want to chem, don't chem, but it's your own fault if your ship goes up in smoke. Chem does its job and it does it well

Daft Loon:
To clarify - The entire purpose of this suggestion is to remove the current incentive to engage in (or require your crew to engage in) the tedious practice of chemming your entire ship repeately before combat. I am entirely aware of the intricacies of re-applying chem spray after combat starts amongst other repairs, it is a challenging and enjoyable part of the game and the cooldown/duration could be adjusted to keep it rougly level with its current form balance wise (on further thought a visible indicator of the amount of chem time remaining would be worth adding with this, maybe a fading of the effect on the component and a light blue indicator somewhere in the repair popup view).

Wrt flamethrower - i cannot see the slight increase in ignition chance (from 36% to 44% in total accross both primary and secondary) even nearly equaling the effect of several components being 100% spared, particularly when each particle can now at most light 2 components (1 gun/engine and the hull). The junker or squid as targets might be an exception to this due to thier open plan layout.

Wrt making chem less than 100% fire proof - An unrelated idea i had was to change chem to a direct percentage point reduction in fire chance of say 20% (current flamer 22% after chem 2% totaling 4% primary and secondary), it would then have more effect on high volume-low chance weapons like the flamer and give more purpose to the existence of incendiary rounds (would probably have to nerf them from +20% to +15% or less).

BlackenedPies:
Players are used to the chem mechanic and it shouldn't be changed. The flamethrower starts fires on any component it hits just like before but doesn't pass all the way through the ship. Shooting components guarantees fires on them, but fires aren't guaranteed on components you don't actually shoot (unlike before).

We agree that this makes chem more effective against flames but it doesn't change that there is no other defense. Extinguishers are useless against constant fire and there's a huge gap between fire from a flame and fire from other guns. The situation is no different from the past flame because it's still the same gun with high rof, huge clip, and big arcs + range.

Chem reducing fire chance by a flat percentage isn't balanced because of the difference between fire guns. It would be more balanced if it was reduced by say 90% of ignition chance (ignition * 0.1) rather than (ignition - 0.2). Even then it's not balanced due to the difference between random small fires and everywhere big fires. The problem is the gun.

Hoja Lateralus:
How about some tweaks to the flamethrower so it hurts more but in short bursts? Say, reduce clip by 25% but fasten reload time a bit, so there's less of constant fire?

Also, cheming is boring, but then again most of engineering is a bit dull. I like the idea of chem not being limited by time but more by its* durability. I don't like the idea of nerfing the chem because it requires a lot of skill and I think the level of reward for that skill is good. As someone also mentioned - flamethrower also deals damage, so engineer is under a lot of pressure to maintain the chem cycle and also repair.

To the extinguisher - it may not be 'competetive' against chem, but I still think that making it 2sec cooldown and 4sec immunity made a great deal. Perhaps put a version with 5sec immunity into DevApp and see how it goes, but since extinguisher is much easier to use it should be less effective.

*I always mistake it - it should be it's or its?

Indreams:
it's = it is
its = possessive of 'it'

But yeah, let's try tweaking the numbers a little more and find out. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page