Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: Captain Smollett on January 18, 2014, 04:44:49 pm
-
Currently I find the balance in GOI to be really quite good however I find two weapons; flamethrower and carousel, to be out of favor and I think it has to do with them being slightly weaker than their counterparts.
These two weapons also have to be some of the most fun to use in the game. Fire is really good against unorganized crews but it doesn't do nearly the amount of disabling I wish it did.
What I propose would be a lowering of flame stacks necessary to kick someone off of guns from 8 to 6. This would allow flamethrowers to be more uesful against teams that can fire control since they'll have to protect their balloons, hulls and guns effectively making a flamethrower worth having on your ship over another weapon.
What say you forum?
-
The other day my gun got to 8 stacks of fire and I was kicked off of using it. I had forgotten this was a working mechanic. I think that says it all. I approve!
-
Maybe. People dont really use incindiary rounds either. A combination of other guns and a banshee/flamer/hades and incindiary from other guns will always cause chaos.
If you want to fire things up, use incindiary. Oh oh, how about this. Usualy on my close range builds of spire and Mobula, i can bring one incindiary and one Greased gattling. What this does is put preasure on the hull. The engineer will just have to use extinguisher at one point. And if not, itl just keep burning.
What im saying is, it is not really the fire. Its the guns. The flamer satisfies the use of fire pretty generaly, but the banshee needs a bit of love. Dont know what they can do with it.
But if you buff the flamer or the banshee on its firey use, your going to have lots of screams for a nerf. Like i said, you can still bring fire even without fire weapons.
Edit: 1 or 2 stacks of fire are very noticable and do need to be dealt with if something is on fire.
-
I suppose I'd be on the fence. For the most part, fire works well. I use the flamethrower on a lot of my builds, and that weapon alone usually causes enough chaos; and that's with my gunners not even using incendiary with it.
For getting kicked off of guns, I don't see that happen often. Once in a blue moon, but most people (that I know of) don't actually aim at the guns all that often. They tend to try and roast the balloon and the hull. I need to coax my gunners to try and aim for their engines a lot of the time.
As for the rockets, I hardly use them myself. I have had them used against me, and they do cause a fair amount of small fires breaking out all over. But nothing extremely detrimental. For the most part it just keeps the engineers distracted and eats away at the less important components as they scramble. Using incendiary rounds along with it might boost the overall potential.
-
I want to know the stats of Banshee and mortra. Im thinking that perhaps incidiary mortar is actually a better version of the banshee. Depends. Anyone gots it? Cause i was actually looking around for it. Didnt find anything.
Stats like, default explosion radius, yaw speed/maw speed etc.
Did a bit of researching on some other stats, like damage and fire Chance. Banshee works well with a flamethrow if the banshee also has Incindiary. Its reload is very good, it does not really have to think about the timing. And it spreads fire at 45% versus every component cought in the banshees AOE. It has 6 shots with incindiary and it gives alot of fire.
I have never really brought banshee with incindiary in company with a flamer or a gattling with incindiary. But it does give alot of fire. The flamer does not have accidental fires put on the opposing ship because it is aimed. You can go crazy with it, but one has to be selective at what one puts into fire. While the banshee can maybe just hoot anywhere and still put loads of fires every where and on guns where the flamer does not aim.
Without stats of the weapons function i cant say for sure.
-
A lot of the explosive weapons have a natural chance to cause fire. The bigger the shot, the higher the chance generally. Giving the flak cannons a bit more oomph, while the mortar still has a decent chance and a larger clip size to back it up. The rockets have a higher than normal chance compared to the other explosive weapons as far as I know; and of course my knowledge could be outdated.
-
hflak-banshee-light flak all that guns have high enough ignite chance to count on. Besides the hades and flamer for sure but that are fire weapons. The other weapons dont have really high ignite chances.
-
My main concern is that fire can't always be counted on as a disabler.
Against a well crewed ship the hull and balloon will be chemsprayed completely neutralizing an entire weapon on your ship if using a flamethrower. If guns needed the same amount of attention that balloons and hulls did during a flame attack even good crews, would be affected by fire and gunners would be much more valuable since heatsink would become a huge asset.
Fire tools are really powerful and still easily counter fire on weapons; I just feel lowering the stacks necessary for gun ejections would make the guns worth taking, gunners more useful and squids better and be an overall positive change for the game as well as making a cool mechanic usable again.
-
I'm kind of curious how the fire stack system works. I -think- that all the components have an equal chance of getting a stack of fire, but I seem to notice that the balloon and hull gather stacks a lot faster than say the engines or guns, even if you aim specifically at those components.
It might be the crazy spread of the weapon, and using incendiary might yield better results. Which means gunners are a little more useful than an engineer on fire based weapons. Generally I just bring lesmok for the range and don't have another ammo type to fall back on.
Chem spray is a good fire deterrent, but it has it's own problems. It's a pro-active protection, and it actually doesn't last all that long. However, this usually means they don't bring a fire extinguisher. If they let their protection slip, they won't be able to keep up with putting the fire out. They'll be stuck at a component for 15 seconds trying to put out 8 or so stacks of fire. Of course a lot of engagements generally don't last all that long, especially if you can't disable them.
-
The Flamethrower is a particle gun: Each particle that passes through a component has a % chance of setting that component on fire. Particles are kind of random within the cone, Balloons and hulls are much larger and more likely to get hit by a particles.
Oddly due to this, burst is actually one of the best ammos to set guns on fire since it makes the particles larger and more likely to hit weapons.
As it stands guns rarely are stacked with enough fire in a reasonable amount of time to kick someone off and make guns worth targeting. I think the small change down to 6 stacks could change that, creating the opportunity to flamestack someone off the gun while still being counterable and without be overpowered.
-
Do I even have to say that I agree with this?
I use flamers often, and I rarely see weapons get red-hot. A buff to its disabling power would be a nice reward for getting in that close.
And on a final note, I find greased best on flamers; you get more ammo, it works faster, and you don't get a turning speed decrease.
-
I agree too. I think that with the new powerful fire tools, 5 should be the magic number, along with making heatsink act like combined fire extinguisher and chemspray- any ammo stacks are extinguished once reload finishes, AND the gun is immune to new ones.
This would make fire into a niche yet balanced tool- very close-range, doing low damage, but it does EVERYTHING- (slowly) kills balloon, hull, and disables guns and engines.
Also, crazy idea- kerosene/moonshine should increase ignition chance, while claw should decrease ignition or even extinguish fires.
-
Yes, I hardly ever see gunners getting booted off guns because of fire. I wouldn't mind trying out other options too like if your guns on fire it will boot you off the gun after so many rounds fired, you could get back on but would have to line up again, or firing bullets while the gun is on fire causes a small amount of extra damage to the gun.
-
Fire Weapons-Hades-Flamer-Carousel,
Hades-By far the most used in the game atm out of the three in my opinion, devastating at any range i think even without the fire damage it causes it would still be the most used, with the de-buff to guns you suggest this could be potentially be over powered close with say incendiary rounds making a close range Hades more viable and getting people to use incendary over say greased or lesmock, it would be fun to see also makes people going up against such a combo of say carousel hades pyra, use heatsink mixing up the tactics which is never a bad thing,
Flamer-i have been working with some new builds trying to break up the meta a little and an effective pyra build that i found was flamer carronade flamer side, up close this build is deadly because of the added flamer to the side and trifector parts/guns get broken and disabled quicker, if the stack decreased was in place i feel one flamer would be viable and then free's up that combo for say harpoon carronade flamer so they stay close >:-) *insert evil laugh here*,
Carousel-I think the carousel is underused even with the increased spread, on my junker i have a carousel flak side hades front, so a mid/close range build anything that does not have an artimus merc, is in for a bad time, i use it similar to hawatcha gattling goldfish just slight adjustments from front arc to the side then back, i personally would rather the carousel have an arming time put on to it and the spread decreased so we could have a mid range meta game to go with long and brawler, in my opinion that is my preferred style of play you need to watch for terrain cover and be deadly all while being close enough to see the foe charging you or bringing gun arcs upon you,
In short i agreed completely possible even go one further by adding the same mechanic to engines but maybe higher stacks, it would be a simple change that would break up level of play for a new refreshing time of raging that no one brought chem spray/heatsink :D
-
Banshees are never underused when Sandy's around.
-
Yeah I've chemmed mobulas that were under a constant assault with flames. Just one on the balloon was enough to keep the ship alive and unable to be killed until allies arrived to relieve it.
Part of that problem is due to the insanely long buff time of Chem. 20 sec? Come on. Think it should return to it's original -40% chance of ignition if your putting a buff on that lasts that long.
Against standard flamer there is just no point in not chemming. But Shees....now those are different stories. Just one can eventually overwhelm a ship. Plus there is the burst effect. Takes time but it can do it simply by the extra explosive dmg. Add 2 of them into the mix and it becomes worse. 3 can be a nightmare.
-
Think this belongs in the gameplay thread, but Ill let the OP decide.
The last time we buffed banshees, it was a mess. I think it's just getting overshadowed by other guns right now (ie. arty) because it really does do what it's designed to. Sets fires, provides explosive damage, and easy to shoot rockets.
All of that said, even I can agree with 6 instead of 8 stacks for guns to boot people off. That's a small enough change that I wouldn't imagine requiring heatsink ammo like the old days, but it'll be a better option to consider.
-
By all means Zill, feel free to please move this to gameplay.
Much appreciated.
You think by now I'd know where to post.
-
Mhh... Maybe i actualy agree here, but poeple mostly talk about getting booted out of a gun.
For that, just lower the stacks of fire it rquiers for the gunner to be booted.
Which may cause gunners or engineers to bring heatsink as an ammo type if they are up against fire.
Right now were at 8 stacks of booting a gunner off?
How does 6 stacks sound? 5?
-
Having flown a squid a ton, and having run crew on some ships with flame and incendiary ammo some more today, I would agree that it takes a ridiculous amount of actual flame to kick someone off a gun. With a squid I can't rely on not being fired upon even after sticking the flame against guns for a good long time.
-
I remember the early days of Guns Of Icarus Online when flames wrecked ships. The only way you could win against someone using a flamethrower was to use one yourself.
They with shitty days. I'd prefer not to have them return.
-
No one as best as I can tell advocates a return tot he one stack kick. However, there is a reason why many players don't know the fact that 8 stacks of fire on a gun will kick a person off the gun, it almost never happens without having already broken the gun, or causing so many issues across the ship.
I'd say move the number to 5. That way, mines can kick people off guns.
-
I'd say move the number to 5. That way, mines can kick people off guns.
Yea that's a good point, mines should be disrupting the crew like that. I could even see a certain amount of impact damage, or even any damage within a small amount of time kicking people off guns for a second.
-
The real problem with fire weapons is that they can be completely nullified by chem spray. Until that is worked out fire weapons will always be a little under powered.
-
I remember the early days of Guns Of Icarus Online when flames wrecked ships. The only way you could win against someone using a flamethrower was to use one yourself.
They with shitty days. I'd prefer not to have them return.
Those days were awesome. Best damn days the game ever had. Engineers had to be on their toes and quick with extinguishes. Pilots had to learn to fly evasive. Gunners, actually had a reason for existing. But it wasn't just flames that were powerful, a lot of other guns were too. It was the time before the game entered it's neutering phase where the ships you flew actually felt like big lumbering hunks of steel, not tin foil battleships, and moved at decent speeds, no like a whale with charlie horse.
Ahhh...good times.
The real problem with fire weapons is that they can be completely nullified by chem spray. Until that is worked out fire weapons will always be a little under powered.
Been saying it since Chem was changed and I'll keep on saying it.
-
Assuming chem spray and extinguisher aren't altered, I think lowering the stacks needed to eject someone off of a gun is a great way to to make fire useful again.
This way people are forced to choose what to chem spray and what to do on the ship.
Chem spraying the balloon, hull, engines and guns will likely result in having much less time to shoot. Basically people will have to choose between keeping their guns up and firing or keeping their ship up and flying thereby making the flamethrower and carousal more menacing.
-
I would also like to see the flame stacks to kick lowered. The only reliable way to kick some one off their gun with out breaking it is the flare gun. You have to be a pretty crack shot to pull that off. Unfortunately any mechanic that will force a gunner off their gun until an engineer can come by will make the gunner a less desirable class than it is now.
-
Maybe heatsink could auto-load into your gun and extinguish it if you get kicked off and get back on?
Assuming you have it, of course.
-
That is a brilliant idea Kirk. What if flame did not kick you off the gun but made it impossible to shoot, but possible to reload? So instead of flames disabling guns it would force gunners into sub optimal ammunition.
-
I would love to see the stacks reduced to 5 or 6 to kick.
As a note, I think if this happens then the stacks that chem spray removes should be reduced to two. Otherwise, it would only take 2 sprays to fix a gun. Currently, it takes 3 sprays to bring stacks from 8 to 0 with chem spray and I think that's good to keep the extinguisher as a viable option.
Now, in all reality this probably wouldn't be that relevant since I find when I'm engineering stacks hang around 1 or 2 or fly past 12. Then there's the dreaded flare... But I like that this game presents options and variance in builds so I would hate to see the chem spray become THE equipment of choice because it can handle red guns too.
-
Nerf the chem more? No.
The chem already has a niche. And you dont need to ext a gun completely afaik to mount it again. Just need to ext below gun kick.
-
It's kind of a delicate line to walk. You want fire to be effective, but not overpowering. We're fairly close to that right now, although if your build is fire heavy it's very easy to counter. I'd be against dropping it down to 5 stacks, as mines are already quite powerful. Lowering the stacks necessary wouldn't do all that much either, as more builds would require chem spray and players would learn to do a better job of keeping things fire resistant.
Currently you don't even really need chem spray at all. If you're under attack by a flamethrower, you can have your engineers just fire extinguish critical components and prevent a ton of fire damage just from the cooldown.
Instead of trying to make fire more potent, why not reduce the tools effectiveness against fire a little? Maybe instead of providing protection for the whole 3 second cooldown, it only does it for 1-2 seconds. This way you can still get some stacks in without it being overwhelming. (I think we remember the time when there was no protection during the cooldown, and all your work would be undone immediately after putting out the fire)
But then you still have the issue with highly coordinated teams using chem spray. Regardless of how powerful fire is, as long as they keep their components sprayed, they're just not going to catch. I generally run a flamer squid, but I've been forced to swap out for a different front gun because of all the ships that bring chem spray (especially if they notice that front flame thrower).
-
If we're worried about mines auto-kicking everyone, we could just lower the fire stacks from mines down to 3 or so.
The fire stacks aren't the most prominent thing about the mines, anyway.
-
I wouldn't make the overall kick number lower. I'd make fire weapons more effective. Don't forget that lowering the kick number also makes it easier for the chem spray to deal with.
-
But then you still have the issue with highly coordinated teams using chem spray. Regardless of how powerful fire is, as long as they keep their components sprayed, they're just not going to catch. I generally run a flamer squid, but I've been forced to swap out for a different front gun because of all the ships that bring chem spray (especially if they notice that front flame thrower).
This was the reason a year ago I became a man and stopped using disabler squids. Ran a few engagements where they just perma chemmed everything. Attack squids didn't suffer the same weakness and actually killed things very fast, enabling me to quickly move on to other ships.
-
I fail to see how lowering kick number makes chem more powerful. It will make it more frequently used, sure, but not powerful.
-
Having a lower kick number means that the fire becomes a bigger problem sooner. If it was something like 5 or 6, two sprays of chem will handle it completely (although if it's just at 8, a single spray of chem will handle it right now too). Fire extinguisher is just for bigger stacks of fire. So when it reaches the kick point now, it's a big problem in both being kicked, and the damage the stacks are doing. Or something like that.
Ultimately lowering the kick stacks won't do all that much. Nor will strengthening fire. The real issue is the effectiveness of chem spray and fire ext. Personally I like how they were improved, but it did impact the effects of fire in a big way.
There's almost always someone chem spraying on a ship, especially if they see you going fire heavy. It's very difficult to get any stacks of fire going on anything but guns (they usually just keep the core components sprayed), and those are easy enough to deal with since everything else is fire proof.
----
Some ways to work around the infinite chem spray is to break components. Once something breaks, the chem spray buff is gone. And once they rebuild it, you can easily get tons of fire stacks on it before they try to chem spray it. Of course if this tactic takes off, they'll be better about chem spraying instead of smacking it with a mallet first thing when it's rebuilt. There's always the problem of breaking it before you set fire to it, as that's kind of the role fire should be doing, and why bother at that point? Really it's nice for the balloon or engines, as the breaking and fire stacks will keep them off the hull long enough for the chem spray to wear off, at which point the fire can do it's thing all over the ship.
So you can still do fire heavy builds, you just can't rely solely on fire.
If there was something to adjust to make fire just a smidgen better, it'd probably be with the fire fighting tools; although it would have to be a very delicate change.
-
Would the flamethrower be over powered if it had another damage type? Say fire and piercing? or maybe fire and shatter?
-
Fire is actually a pretty boss damage type on it's own, even without the fire stacks. 1.5 Balloon, 1.3 Armor, 0.25 weapons. 0.8 hull. Dragon Tongue does Fire/Fire with 4/0 damage. A clip of 300 has a potential damage of 1200 ( 1800 balloon, 1560 armor, 300 weapon, 960 hull). I believe this is beyond the fire stacks themselves, as it's possible to still damage chem sprayed ships and even destroy ships with a flamethrower (a broken hull can't get fire stacks on it). Lesmok is one of the more popular choices the for gun, but that lowers the overall damage a fair amount. Not to mention how a lot of guns tend to spread the flamethrower all over the ship (or at least I tell them to). This leads to the damage not being focused in one area and spread out, leading to less destruction when the components are chem sprayed.
As a general recommendation against chem sprayed opponents, focus on taking out the balloon or hull heavily with the flame thrower. It'll take the whole clip or so. When they rebuild it, you can more or less get the max fire stacks back up on it instantly (once it's rebuilt, they'll often smack it with a mallet, which prevents them from chem spraying.) Once you take out one, focus on the other. Around this time the chem spray should be wearing off, as the engineers were busy with the other significant damage. So you should be able to start getting the engines as well. Very rarely are weapons chem sprayed, but they're a difficult target to hit. Heavy clip might actually be a good choice if you want to focus on them specifically. This also keep the engineer distracted from keeping the chem up.
-
Math aside it still needs a boost in order for it to be useful in higher lvl play. Most guns have two damage types and with the short range/build up time that the weapon has would it really be overpowered if it had another damage type?
-
Making the flamer have 2 damage types will not solve the problem that flame stacks on anything except balloon and hull can be easily ignored, and those two components are easily sprayed. That's what this and hamster's thread https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,3302.0/topicseen.html aim to address.
Also, another idea: what if having fire stacks on a gun or engine made other repairs to it less efficient?
-
Also, another idea: what if having fire stacks on a gun or engine made other repairs to it less efficient?
I think it could be cool if fires burnt away the buff on a component before it started burning down it's health.
-
I like the place fire is right now. If you nerf chemspray or lower the number of stacks on weapons before kick, double flamer squid would be ridicilously OP.
Squid is shp I'm worst at, and even I can nearly instantly lockdown ships other than junker and squid. I've experienced more Squid savy pilots uppress junkers and pras too.
It's a poor mans mass atremis spam. I'm might not kill fast but it's going to put enemy on defence, or keep them suppressed even it if won't dissable everything.
-
I like the place fire is right now. If you nerf chemspray or lower the number of stacks on weapons before kick, double flamer squid would be ridicilously OP.
Squid is shp I'm worst at, and even I can nearly instantly lockdown ships other than junker and squid. I've experienced more Squid savy pilots uppress junkers and pras too.
It's a poor mans mass atremis spam. I'm might not kill fast but it's going to put enemy on defence, or keep them suppressed even it if won't dissable everything.
A well coordinated crew can chem spray the balloon and hull and be virtually unaffected by fire. They can ignore the ship burning them, kill the other enemy ship, kill the ship burning them and then attend to the engines and guns.
There really should be no weapon in the game that can be ignored if used properly, no matter how good the engineering is on a ship.
-
Also, another idea: what if having fire stacks on a gun or engine made other repairs to it less efficient?
I think it could be cool if fires burnt away the buff on a component before it started burning down it's health.
I thought the same thing, but for tar. It makes sense that first the wax covering would get melted/eaten through, then the component itself. Using buffs as a shield against tar or fire is really cool and adds an extra dimension to engineering.
p.s. and yes, double flamer squids would be useless even if the suggested fire buffs went through.
-
There is a reson I called id a poor man's artemis - instead of rich-mand or middle incommers artemis. Chemspray completely kills it (but you can't have more than 1 buffkit then, altho I suppose you don't need more than that anyway if you can ingore half of the enemy fleet. Becouse the you can keep your whole ship protected with 1 chem spray (depends on the ship). If it cathes you off guard (it easily can), becouse chemspray does have long repair cooldown. It's a very situational build (it helps if the other ship has actual klling power, to take advanage of emergency scramble the ships is in while dealing getting hit by 2 flamers -12-20 seconds when your components can't be reapired).
Despite extensive amount of experience fighting Cake, it still happens that some key component won't be chemsprayed and will immediately get above 10 stacks of fire. Flamer isn't perfect weapon, bashee and flamer can both be ignored as long as you have everything chemsprayed (eventualy something won't be - even if it's just guns and engines).
Flamer is unfortionately such a weapon that it's either very situational or it's horifficaly OP.
It's definitely not something you want to bring to bring to BO1 if you want to win. You can only bring it to BO3 competitive eventy only if you are willing to risk it all for some fun - and it might just work agains ships with easily exploitable blind spot. And it's allways a great support weapon - if it's in a secondary weapon slot (port guns on pyra - especialy stern port gun for example). If it's on a "secondary" slot enemy won't be ever suficciently prepared - chemspray is allways at leat 9 seconds you could be repairing instead.
-
Currently as it is, when an engineer uses the chemical spray religiously, ships become nigh impervious to fire attacks and makes fire extinguisher next to usless.
Maybe instead of being 100% immune, perhaps it adds a -75% ignition chance or something that flame attacks would need to overcome to apply their stacks onto components. It can be applied like the buff hammer effect and last a while till it wears off.
Or perhaps the chemspray can apply "anti-fire" stacks onto a component that is neutralised or burnt off when an ignition chance procts.
Or even a combination of the two, having a -50% ignition chance and any chance that succeeds, it strips off a layer of fire retardant. Will help resist all but the most intense flamer load outs that some ships should be rewarded for taking the risk of bringing.
Engineers are suppose to buy time for ships to stay in one piece, they can only repair so much damage. In that same vein, their anti fire options should not grant 100% immunity to the point where they can ignore flames altogether.
-
Or maybe sometimes the simplest solutions are often the best.
have a -40% ignition chance (instead of -100%) that last for 20 seconds or less. It would render most flame attacks ineffective, unless prolonged or under intense dual flamers with incendiary loaded into them.
Nerfing the anti fire tools would be indirectly buffing fire weapons
-
Salutations,
First off I would like to apologize for the thread necro but I figured that it would be a good place to put my thoughts on a possible fire idea.
I propose a change where fire stacks would potentially grow over time based on the number of stacks on a component. Say that the main engine gets 2 stacks of fire, at the beginning the growth of stacks could be slow to get to 3, 4, or 5 stacks however as it does so it gets progressively faster such that by the time it reaches say 12-14 stacks it wouldn't be long before it hits 20 and the component follows shortly thereafter burning away the entire time.
This could have a few potential effects for mid battle decisions such as if the balloon catches on fire then you can either try to ignore it and gun, meanwhile the fire stacks accumulate over time dealing more damage and making it harder to remove with chem spray or try to put it out immediately saving the balloon but sacrificing firepower. It can also cause more priority on a gunner's gun as currently if it were to catch fire gunners just hit it with a pipe wrench every so often and continue firing until an engineer can go to put it out. Continuous fire growth would make a gunner's fire more of a priority as eventually without care it will reach the mythical 8th stack forcing a gunner off until extinguish or break and rebuild.
If one wanted a potential nerf to the chem spray it might also be possible to make it so that the immunity applied only works on the initial application of fire and not necessarily the growth so it can still gain stack number even with immunity applied. This could make the extinguisher a better backup method of fire extinguish as if ones immunity wore off and several stacks were applied during that time a chem spray might not be able to save it due to having to constantly fight the growth of fire necessitating either an extinguisher or a break and rebuild. This keeps the chem spray's strength of preventing fires but makes it helpless in fighting them as eventually, provided enough firepower by the enemies, once the fires start then the constant attempts at extinguishing and rebuilding will take time letting the other chemmed components wear off and set alight.
The downsides of such an idea that I can think of so far would be an extra incentive for the third engineer to be able to handle his own fires. Another thing would be whether or not this would have an actual affect on the state of fire. Given the right levels of growth I don't believe it will be overpowered but the true weakness of fire is a well chem sprayed ship which while fire growth will give fire a potential fight against chem if it starts on a sufficient level of stacks it still has to get through that layer of immunity.
I'm not sure if this would be possible as well, but if it were possible to make fire able to spread to other components on the ship once the stacks got to a certain threshold level. Starting by spreading to the hull/balloon first if those aren't on fire already then going to random components from there. This is just a possible addition to this idea, but I'm unsure of the difficulty in implementing it into the game code wise and to balance it as well and is not the main part of the suggestion above, but a possible addition to it.
Lastly, my apologies for the terrible grammar and the wall of text. English grammar isn't my best subject I'm afraid. Post your thoughts about this idea if you could and thank you for reading.
Summary,
-Improvement to fire allowing a fire to grow in stacks over time based on amount of stacks.
-Potential nerf to chem spray by allowing fire growth to ignore immunity.
-If possible to implement and balance have fire spread after reaching a number of stacks.