Berfing (Buff but also nerf) The chemspray

[Hoja Lateralus]

Well, flamethrowers still 'deal damage', chem prevents stuff from bursting into flames. Especially given that you rarely have one flamethrower pointed at you, usually it's 2 flamers or flamer/carro, flamer/gat etc. Also (at least now) when you are being constantly flamed there is much pressure on engineer to maintain chem cycles 'and' repair, which is slower due to chemspray cooldown. If you want less running around and a little nerf to chemspray I'd do something like
-decrease stack reduction from 3 to 2 (that's harsh, but it doesn't break the chem, only makes it flaws more harmful)
-increase the fire resistance by 5-10 seconds (because less running around)
-increase cooldown by 1-2 seconds (given 10s longer resistance I consider it fair enough)
-perhaps (as I suggested in some other thread) give flamer more damage, but smaller clip
Also - chem is much more effective than extinguisher (to the point of extinguisher being completely uncompetetive) but it needs much more skill to pull off good cheming. I think we can find some sweet spot by tweaking stack reduction, fire resistance time and cooldown. It's also easiest to do code-wise (changing several values).

[Crafeksterty]

I agree, the sweet spot needs to be found. But then again fire needs to be wanted to be used and controlling fire skillfully shouldnt negate it 100%.
I personaly dont like how the chemspray if used skillfully neglects fire by extreme ammounts, and thats what i see as a flaw or unbalance. You still want fire weapons to be used, chemspray and fire extinguishers should just combat it.


I remember another suggestion now.

- Chemsprays last twice as long (Or 60 seconds)
- The chemicals have health now, like 25 stacks of fire need to be added before the chemical spray effect depletes early.
- 2 seconds longer cooldown.

That way, fire can still pierce a component, but then again the flamer is the only weapon that would pierce it due to how fast it adds fire.
I still think my initial idea kind of balances the problem out because it relies on chances rather than outright On or Off switches.

Then again, maybe im overthinking the effect of fire. Maybe its just a tertiary effect than a secondary effect.

[Hoja Lateralus]

I remember another suggestion now.

- Chemsprays last twice as long (Or 60 seconds)
- The chemicals have health now, like 25 stacks of fire need to be added before the chemical spray effect depletes early.
- 2 seconds longer cooldown.

That way, fire can still pierce a component, but then again the flamer is the only weapon that would pierce it due to how fast it adds fire.
I still think my initial idea kind of balances the problem out because it relies on chances rather than outright On or Off switches.

This is a solution I can support, perhaps with some tweaks in numbers.

Edit: Anyone mailed it to Muse yet?

[GurasOguras]

I do not like any of the ideas for change chemspray and don't understand what people see unbalanced in it. Chemspray is an important part of the game. Gunner or pilot skill can be seen right away, but the engineers and their contribution are very undervalued. Let me explain then. Noobs and greenhorns are using fire extinguisher since they haven't learned yet the value of chemspray or have problems with keeping good cycles. A good engineer's skill is measured in his chemspray and buff cycles. The better engineer is, the higher performance he does. I see no reason to make extinguisher more valuable or nerf chemspray. If you would think for a moment and play a little more often as engi, you would have come to conclusion that any changes like that to current tools would completely fuck up engineer class and it really would change it into a machine running in circles. Engineer class is based on the thinking, on sense of multitasking and making a lot of decisions. A little change in this direction gonna completely fuck up a value of good and experienced engineer.

~ An opinion of a true engineer player, not f*cking festive one. Im sorry for the anger.

[Daft Loon]

An idea that might be useful

- Adding fire damage immunity into the mix of chem spray balance (some % reduction to existing stacks and direct fire type damage)

-In the extreme it could be -100% fire damage and -50% to -75% ignition chance, parts would "heat up" and then burst into flames when you miss chem

[Hoja Lateralus]

Guras, I'm also spending most of my time as engineer and my point is that running around and cheming stuff is challenging, sure, but in the long run it's more tiring/annoying than fun. So rather than trying to nerf chem I'm rather trying to make it less running around (and perhaps more thinking/tactics). Also I'm not saying all of changes I suggest should be implemented - I'm giving the options and how we should combine and implement them is up to DevApp testing.
I mean, gunner gets to shoot, which is pretty cool, pilot gets to steer ship which is also cool, and engineer(s)? Run in circles, chem, repair and don't you dare to make mistakes, because, hey, here's some moonshine. For some it may seem more like a chore than fun. And, given that I agree with engineer skill ceiling being not very high, it may be a boring chore.

Is chem unbalanced? Crafek argues that it is, you can see why in his posts. For me.... meh. I mean, it's much more effective than extinguisher, but then again it takes much more skill. Some could say that flamer is unbalanced because it takes one GOOD chem-engineer (chem takes one engineer slot) to counter it (and two engineers with extinguishers can't do much). And it doesn't nullify the flamer, it just prevents from being wrecked (flamer still deals damage). Isn't it like saying chute vent is unbalanced because it counters carronade?

[Crafeksterty]

~ An opinion of a true engineer player, not f*cking festive one. Im sorry for the anger.

The unbalancement here is how its better than extinguisher, and how it negates fire weapons by so much that youde rather just not bring fire weapons against chemspraying engies.
Theres no point for extinguishers.
Theres no point for Fire weapons.

Its not a huge unbalance like i may sound and claiming it to be, but currently how the gameplay forces these choices are bothering me. I want to bring a flamer because i know i can cause chaos, not because it is a pub game.

If you want more decision making in engie play, this idea will make players want to bring both one extinguisher and a chemspray engie along with allowing enemies to bring fire weapons ranging in more things to consider.


I mean, youve played engineer so much that youve gotten used to it and dont see what it does.

[BlackenedPies]

The points are good but I don't agree with the proposals. Extinguishers are somewhat useful now but I think immunity should be 5. The downside of chem is that it slows repairs per second, so bringing fire weapons forces slower repairs. With max chem efficiency repairs per second are reduced by 22%.

A berf for chem is increasing cooldown and immunity to 6 and 30s. In practice this would both increase and decrease repairs per second when used effectively, and add a bit more strategy. In likely scenarios it would increase and decrease repairs by around 7% (compared to current).

I don't think there should be any major changes because it would cause confusion.

[BlackenedPies]

A berf for chem is increasing cooldown and immunity to 6 and 30s. In practice this would both increase and decrease repairs per second when used effectively, and add a bit more strategy. In likely scenarios it would increase and decrease repairs by around 7% (compared to current).

In most cases it's a nerf to repairs. The extra 5s of immunity is useful but the +7% repair is at the risk of 3 seconds of fire.

[Daft Loon]

I'd have to disagree with increasing the immunity time, it seems to me like there are 2 main parts to chem

1 - repeatedly applying chem early - boring, repetitive but otherwise easy

2 - re-applying chem with other repairs - difficult, fun and skill based in both timing and decision making

Having longer cool downs and immunity time seems like it would make 1 more effective and 2 less effective (can't see reducing them much making sense either since that's what the fire extinguisher is)

Another slightly out there idea

- Make chem spray into something like engine buffs - a mostly passive effect
- Change extinguisher to somewhere between its current self and current chem spray

[BlackenedPies]

Muse won't implement changes to mechanics and the community won't agree on major changes. Make it simple or it won't happen.

Having longer cool downs and immunity time seems like it would make 1 more effective and 2 less effective (can't see reducing them much making sense either since that's what the fire extinguisher is)

It wouldn't change the overall effectiveness of 1 and would increase AND decrease the effectiveness of 2 depending on situation.
It can have a slight effect on increasing AND decreasing effectiveness of 1 but main effects are on 2.
In most cases it's a small nerf with minor effect on total immunity- the main effect is repairs.

[BlackenedPies]

In most cases it's a small nerf with minor effect on total immunity- the main effect is repairs.

Assuming of course that you're facing a variety of damage (flechette/piercing/shatter) instead of all fire.

This is because the purpose of chem is to provide immunity at the cost of repairs per second. Fire is not useless against chem- it reduces repairs by a MINIMUM of 22%! All fire is useless against chem.

[Dementio]

Engineers are not gunners, but they still shoot. Chem Spray may be dull for that one guy on a Pyramidion's bottom deck, but on a Junker's top deck it could be much more stressful for how "easy" it is.

For some of the proposed suggestions which imply that having both Fire Extinguisher and Chem Spray is the best solution, I argue it is not. I hope just mentioning the Mobula here is enough, but also Galleon and Spire might very well suffer as the engineers want to shoot when they are not fixing the components they are closest too instead of running across the ship to fix the other guy's component. The casual player wants to have one tool and be effective with it, it shouldn't require the other tool too. But I am probably making it sound worse than it actually is...

Regarding a less than 100% fire immunity on Chem Spray: Sure, but why. It will be balanced to a point where only very few fire stacks will be applied to the chem sprayed component to the point where it can be extinguished with Chem Spray alone. Also, the current Flamer is very different to the old Flamer, since it stacks fires insanely quickly, it might just eat straight through the non-perfect fire immunity while other fire guns don't propose any threat when compared. (Is that actually good?)

A problem that both anti-fire tools share is definetely that they are both very similar and don't have that many cases where they are applied. Mallet and Spanner at least have Repair and Rebuild, but the anti-fire tools just have extinguish while interrupting repair cycle or use before fire to get some fire immunity for a sec. I am making sense here, right?
My point is: No matter what, as far as I can tell if one of these tools don't change their mechanic, there will always be one superior anti-fire tool, which is Chem Spray for the moment as it can actually effectively fight fires with a minimul interference to the repair cycle. For example, what I am thinking about is Chem Spray replacing the buff when applied, whereas the Fire Extinguisher changes to something very similar to the current Chem Spray. Ultimate fire immunity at the cost of less survivabily and manouverbility or the best from both worlds, which will constantly interfere with the repair cycles. This way you could have the same tool twice or combine both of them to minimize the disadvantages for different playstyles, because, for example on the Pyramidion, you may want buff on the balloon so you take a Fire Ext, while on the Hull and Engines you take the Chem Spray so your repair efficiency is maximized. (A thing to note here is that this version of the Chem Spray won't hold while a component is destroyed, while this version of the Fire Extinguisher will.)

[GurasOguras]

Finally an right answer! Daniel Dementio explained in a simpler way that with which I have problems due to the magnificence of the language barrier. After all, this idea (although better than everything I've seen so far) is also a nerf to me - a buff engineer. Whatever you wouldn't do there will always be either main or buff engineer nerfed. Any changes to current chemspray balance would be a huge nerf to whole engineer class.

Let me try to explain then once again: A good engie is not only that engie, who know how to run in circles and chemspray. You can teach every noob to do that. If you guys are trying to tell that current chemspray in right hands is imba, then HELL IT IS NOT! You completely don't consider fact that components need to be repaired and rebuilded. When for example main engineer on Goldfish is tanking the hull, because opponents are very fierce on gatling, then he'll have to stay on it and engines will lose chemspray buff. You get it already, or still need more examples?

[BlackenedPies]

You mean you couldn't have a component buffed and chem sprayed at the same time? No. It won't go past Muse and the community will fuss (many will vehemently oppose). There's tons of ways to increase balance but the only ones that matter are those with the possibility of being adopted. Unless the thread is meant for imagining balance.