Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: Deltajugg on May 13, 2014, 08:24:03 pm
-
I decided to make this thread, for I am highly confused with an opinion of some people about the current efficiency of a fire extinguisher. This thread serves only for a discussion about how good do you find the fire ext. in the game since the Cake Patch.
For me, it's currently mandatory. Until recently, the meta was to take chem spray to prevent any inconvenient flame stacks put on your weapon and components with possible hades or mortar shots, mine explosion, a flamer seen once in a while, mostly as a carro/flamer pyra combo, and of course my favourite, incendiary gatling. In all the cases chem spray immediately put on a component prevented any additional flame stacks on f.e. your weapon, thus you avoided fire rate/damage etc. reduced on it and kept the decent efficiency on a weapon, that hopefully turned out to be better than that of your meta-chem sprayed enemy. Even in case of not having a component sprayed once in a while you were most likely fine, for flame stacks didn't go up as much, and you could easily extinguish it with the chem spray, and its 3 second freeze cooldown.
But meta goes on, at least for me, and with current Cake patch we see flamer being a viable choice again, to the point of being really troublesome. Not only has the flamethrower been buffed, and flamestacks are put much faster on every part your ship, chem spray itself has been nerfed as well, with freeze cooldown being 5 seconds now.
Starting from the flamer buff itself, I see it being used to great effect against many ships that have not been sprayed effectively until now, for it was simply never that much of a threat. Galleon guns seem to be on fire 24/7 now, Junker's lower deck is now a personal flying furnace, and don't even get me started on a mobula. Thing is, in many situations those certain parts are not sprayed, for there are some matters to deal with that are more urgent, like repairing the engines, hull, or shooting the guns in the first place. In many situations there's simply no time to deal with a possible future threat, for some things that currently need your attention prove to be lethal if left unattended, but taking care of it simply leaves you exposed to another mortal danger, this time in a form of your whole lower deck being burned down while you were busy keeping the hull up from enemy gatling. With the current flamer stacking like crazy mistakes and higher priority decisions bring the consequences as the ones prior to Cake patch, but with more flame stacks on components it simply proves to be a nuisance that needs to be taken care of ASAP, where before we simply shrugged it off with a simple "meh".
Now, when it comes to the Chem Spray nerf, I realized 2 second make a big difference of all kinds. Every component you spray delays the later repairs by 5 seconds now. A gun already broken can be either repaired and burned down or chem sprayed and barely effective for 5 seconds. Not to mention (this may be just me) the timer clock on my actions is in complete chaos now, for I often find myself being in a situation where 5 seconds is too short of a time for me to do another action in the meantime, like shoot a gun before I repair the currently sprayed hull, but too long for me to efficiently maintain the component. This 5 seconds delay causes all kinds of confusion, hull bracing is practically not a thing anymore, for I can't as effectively pre-spray right before a fight to start bracing immediately, and even if I do, I'll end up with either heavily broken hull for 5 seconds or repaired hull burning nice and warm.
That being said, I think of one Fire Extinguisher on every ship as a consensus for all the disturbance the flamer is causing now. It is a tool that one may think can cause all kinds of different trouble on a ship, but I do not find it being of as big a consequence as not having it and dealing with 20 stacks on your balloon with a chem spray. It is as effective on a ship that has highly ineffective spraying route, like Mobula, as on a ship with areas of higher priority, and thus different parts exposed more often to the enemy fire(literally) like Junker/Galleon. It can also be used effectively on a ship with main component being close enough to the other objectives of an engineer, like Pyramidion's balloon side, and most importantly it can deal with heavy fire stacks if an engineer with a chem spray finds himself under a pressure so overwhelming that his decisions on whether or not to spray will take their toll.
For some reason, despite all the flamer buffs and chem spray nerfs, meta stays the same, and everyone still takes chem spray, without even considering using a fire ext. I want to hear your opinion on whether or not you find one fire extinguisher a viable option for the situations that chem spray can't deal with.
-
I still find the fire extinguisher usefull. Not statwise tho.
It is just easier to use than the chem spray, maybe not as effective though. The cooldown is just big enough to be annoying for a repair, while the immunity during the cooldown does not help when the immunity does not give space for some form of repair. The only equipment that excuses this is the chems 3 stack extinguish.
In another thread, i suggested making the flamer cooldown 1.5 seconds while still keeping 3 second immunity.
Other than that, i feel better using the extinguisher than the chem spray whenever im engineer. I dont have to deal with a higher cooldown, and fire stacks where i forgot/was too late to apply spray. But thats just me, i dont usually play engineer so the mentality of chemspray makes me irritaed and thus rather use extinguisher.
-
I would like to see the repair cool down removed along with the fire immunity. Than you could repair after you extinguish or put out another fire.
-
I totally understand what you say and agree when you talk about the chem spray.
But there is one huge issue that you dont cover for the ext.
Yes you can put out any number of stacks immidiatly. But when you fight against flamers you will still have the issue that it will immidiatly catch fire after 3 second immunity again.
A flamer has such a high rof and such a high ignition chance that you will have a fire on a component again once the immunity runs of. Thus rendering you to constantly camp a component which will stop you from doing anything else until you are out of range for the flamer.
Instead i could have a chem spray and spray the component once giving me 20 seconds to do sth else. Unless there is something else shooting the same component i just sprayed the dmg from the flamer is usually not that high that i cant do anything else.
The only use for a ext is on longer ranges gainst several hades/banshees when the gungineer lets say on a galli has to shoot constantly. A lumberjack for example. The reload time is fast enough for you to barely have effective spray routes for the lower deck so you might want to have the ext instead. On nearly every other ship i tend to bring a chem spray atm.
-
Yes you can put out any number of stacks immidiatly. But when you fight against flamers you will still have the issue that it will immidiatly catch fire after 3 second immunity again.
...
Thus rendering you to constantly camp a component which will stop you from doing anything else until you are out of range for the flamer.
In many situations there's simply no time to deal with a possible future threat, for some things that currently need your attention prove to be lethal if left unattended, but taking care of it simply leaves you exposed to another mortal danger
Exactly why you need the chem spray. Using the extinguisher to keep a single important component from burning down means you cannot turn your attention to anything else.
The only way is perfect chem spray. Damned if you miss a chem spray, just as dammed if you futilely attempt to extinguish fires all over the ship, only to have another 10 stacks on the first component you extinguished.
The solution is, sometimes, to let the component burn down (which will probably happen due to chem spray misses /engineering pressure from Gatling, carronade etc) . Broken components cannot catch on fire. So you simply chem spray immediately after the component is rebuilt. Flamer damage through chem spray is now sufficiently nerfed that it is negligible.
-
A flamer has such a high rof and such a high ignition chance that you will have a fire on a component again once the immunity runs of. Thus rendering you to constantly camp a component which will stop you from doing anything else until you are out of range for the flamer.
Exactly why you need the chem spray. Using the extinguisher to keep a single important component from burning down means you cannot turn your attention to anything else.
Thing is, in many situations it's not that big of a bother, like on a balloon side of a pyramidion for example. You can quite often focus on extinguishing the balloon without any problem until enemy armor's down, then mount the mortar, kill them, that way dealing with future flamer problems. On a junker, for example, top deck engineer can spray balloon, side engines AND the hull, while front engie can keep the fire extinguisher in times of need, like in case of lower deck burning. Hull is sprayed either way, but you are also prepared for other threats.
The only way is perfect chem spray. Damned if you miss a chem spray, just as dammed if you futilely attempt to extinguish fires all over the ship, only to have another 10 stacks on the first component you extinguished.
That's the thing, even perfect spraying is not enough anymore. Let's say you're fighting against gat/mortar and carro/flamer pyras. At one point you'll be left with a choice, either protect yourself from enemy mortar by using a mallet on the hull and keeping you alive, or protect yourself from the incoming flamer by re-spraying before the previous hull freeze runs off. Either way you're screwed, but incoming flamestacks rising on your hull can be dealt with quickly by an engineer from the balloon with fire ext after mallet cooldown is over. Of course, whether or not it'll be effective depends on how long the previous chemspray freeze will hold on the hull, will flamestacks deal more damage during up to 9 seconds than what you managed to repair with a mallet, but that way you dealt with gatling threat, and in most of the cases the intervention of a second engineer will save you from the flamestacks as well.
This actually has even been abused by Bubbles himself on one of the DevMatches after the patch, where he decided to take a Pyramidion with a gat/flamer, and it REALLY was a bother, especially with balloon poppers his other teammates decided to take. You always either ended up with hull down from too much gat fire, or hull down from too much fire stacks, and unfortunately, you can't keep the hull maintained and protected effectively from both anymore, not with the current chem spray cooldown. It was frustrating to such point that I actually swapped places with the other engineer and took the fire ext as a sidegineer, assisting my main engie. And we won this one, I like to think thanks to this (not really, our ship still barely did anything, we just didn't die anymore :| )
And that's only one example, depending on all kinds of gun combinations, there is always a situation where, having a chem spray, you end up with a choice that either gets you killed, or gets you disabled with fire and killed later on.
I am kind of a person that is tolerant about all kinds of weird ideas for builds and layouts when it comes to competitive games. I believe that everything is useful, depending on the situation. I see the advantages of having all your engineers carrying chem spray, but my belief in everything having its use is the very reason I made this thread. I'm just wondering why noone takes into consideration that there are situations where you'd rather have that one fire extinguisher on your ship. I'm not saying in all kinds of situations, I mean what's the point of taking fire ext if all you're fighting against is hades/flak and such, but with flamer buff we have much more use of the extinguisher.
-
For the junker i actually agree. You have a point for the front engineer. Makes alot of sense there.
But for a pyra and pretty much every other ship the chem is still the better choice.
Yes you can ext the balloon quite effective on a pyra and still do your job (for timing weapons atleast).
But why should you render yourself that hard when you could instead just spray the balloon and be fine.
Another issue would be whenever you jump down to tank your balloon will surely burn down due to fire. With a chem you would have alot more time till you need to go up again to keep the balloon alive. A ext cant do this.
And sure the gat flamer combo is hard to deal with. But it doesnt matter if you have a ext or a chem. Yes with the ext you could get the fire out completly in theory but you would still have the thread of the gat destroying your armor. The 2 sec wont matter for most ship as a gat can instagib any armor ingame. Specially when its assisted by a flamer. There is just no point in ext at this point. Get as many hp on your armor as possible to give your guns and ally as much time as possible to kill the enemy that threatens you.
And gat flamer builds were used beforehand. Not as often as now but i saw them before the patch aswell.
I always like to learn new builds. I just think that the chem outweights the benefits of a ext in 90% of the cases. And thats what i think needs to be adressed.
I just dont think even with the flamer buff that the ext is a viable choice in most situations. The situations where a ext is better than a chem are so rare that you barely encounter them.
-
OP may have a point, although I think a mix of both among the crew would likely be the best bet. Personally I'll stick with my chem sprayer for now because I like the "ounce of prevention" it provides. It's been sufficient on every ship I've been on so long as the pilot is kind enough to steer us out of the flames before too long. ;)
-
Depends on what I'm flying and how, but generally speaking bringing an extinguisher aboard is considered a crime punishable by death... Considering the fact that extinguisher provides no immunity to fire, and is often only a quick relief if a high stack occurs that needs dousing...
-
I can't even stand the sight of engineers above lvl 6 carrying extinguishers.
The tool is in definite need of buff, and I agree it should cause neither a cooldown nor fire immunity, and be usable on components that are currently on cooldown. I'd still run chemspray myself, but at least fire extinguisher would have some use as an easier alternative.
-
I don't mind fire extinguisher on squids and I force my crew to use it on mobula. On galleon and junker 1 chem spray is enough to keep balloon and hull safe. Other ships are troublesome to handle if you are up against fire. A 3rd engineer is an option there.
Chem spray is most useful when you want to prepare against fire, because the enemy has hades, banshee or just a flamer. But if the enemy has none of these weapon, then chem spray is wasted. The chance of fire from explosive guns is rather rarely and really not dangerous at all. Incendary rounds can turn the tides in special cases, but you can check the gunners loadout just in case, if you wanna be sure.
The fire extinguisher is not totally useless and I tend to not care if my crew brings fire ext or chem spray if the enemy has none of these fire weapons. But yes, it could not hurt to give it some buff.
-
The fire extinguisher and the chem spray share a relationship similar to the repair and the buff engy. The fire extinguisher is far superior to get on-fire components up in the heat of battle, but dousing the balloon and guns with chem before taking on a flamer build can save your ship. If you have a well-coordinated team, it`s best to have both. If you`re a lone engy, use the extinguisher.
-
I bring an extinguisher on a spire or mobula if i need to be shooting first and repairing second.
These chem spray circuits y'all talk about are boring too.
-
I don't mind fire extinguisher on squids and I force my crew to use it on mobula. On galleon and junker 1 chem spray is enough to keep balloon and hull safe. Other ships are troublesome to handle if you are up against fire. A 3rd engineer is an option there.
Chem spray is most useful when you want to prepare against fire, because the enemy has hades, banshee or just a flamer. But if the enemy has none of these weapon, then chem spray is wasted. The chance of fire from explosive guns is rather rarely and really not dangerous at all. Incendary rounds can turn the tides in special cases, but you can check the gunners loadout just in case, if you wanna be sure.
The fire extinguisher is not totally useless and I tend to not care if my crew brings fire ext or chem spray if the enemy has none of these fire weapons. But yes, it could not hurt to give it some buff.
I would agree with most of what you're saying. In the case of Galleons though, I've recognized the need for both engies to carry chem when flamers are equipped on enough ships to justify the danger of disabling the medium guns. It can really tear the teeth out of a Galleon's bite when they're too hot and frequently flamed, in most other cases though I'm okay with a chem/exting combo depending on enemy ship loadouts.
I still feel that the flamer needs more work, the rate of fire and high ignition chance is pretty overwhelming (ex: triple flamer pyra). Ofc it could also be a good counter to close range metas when keeping them at arms length but meh I dunno if the efficiency it works at is at the sweet spot yet.
-
The extinguisher is in desperate need of a buff. If you are being faced with just a SINGLE flamethrower and you do not have chem spray, your entire ship is going to go down in flames. You will constantly be putting the same component out over and over again and will be unable to either repair it nor take care of any other components. Guns will be unusable. No matter what you do, everything will continue to be on fire and you will die a horrible death from just one flamethrower, let alone the mayhem and pandemonium caused by two or three flamethrowers, or a flamethrower and any other type of damage. Even when I am playing with brand-new players, I have them bring chem spray and I teach them how to use it right away. Sure, it's hard to learn to use properly and get the cycles down for the different ships, but without it, you are utterly useless against flamethrowers, so it's better to learn good habits right away.
I do agree that it can make engineering really, really boring to be running in circles chem spraying everything all the time. I don't know what the solution is. Buff extinguisher, nerf flamethrower, or some combination of the two, I suppose, but the way it stands now, you have, have, HAVE to have chemical spray to survive a flamer.
-
I generally like having both on my ships. Both offer good benefits, but both have their limitations. There are many situations where Chemspray is better, but in my experience, there are just as many opportunities where the Extinguisher is a better option.
-
I tend to bring it as the 3rd engineer on a ship, or on a ship that is hard to spray such as the mobula, or a ship where you need to be firing regardless of how much damage you're taking, like on a mobula or spire. Then afterwards you can go extinguish that 20 stacks on your balloon.
-
-use against spot fires you might get when struck by a strong explosive damage shot, ie heavy flak. They have a good chance of setting things on fire.
-as third engineer with chem, fireX and wrench if you worry about flamer heavy opponents.
But as things stand at the moment, chemspray is your main defense against flamers while fireX is your plan B.
-
As things stand there is barely any use for a ext.
Maybe as second engi on a galleon unless the enemy has flamers where youre ext is useless.
Outside of this situation dont use it. The chem will serve better.
Low fire-> its fine
high fire-> spray and its fine
-
If fireX didn't need to share the repair cool down and can put fires out in the middle of it, would it still be OPed?
-
The extinguisher has a suitable role on a ship, I normally like to see both the extinguisher and the chemspray if a ship has two engineers.
Where the extinguisher really shines is when one is on fire, but not currently under fire. This is predominantly when facing a Hades/Incendiary ammo, or if your ship manages to get out of range of a flamer. The low repair cooldown allows for much faster fire extinguishing and repair than the chem spray. It is a reactive tool, as opposed to the proactive chemical spray.
Times that the Chemical spray shines:
-Hull (Pre combat), Guns, Pyra Balloons.
Times that the Extinguisher shines
-Hull (Post combat), Engine fires, Other Balloons, Mobula hull/balloons.
By far, using the two in conjunction is best. When under direct flamer fire (and unable to fire) the extinguisher should put out heavy fires and the chemcal sprayer should immediately be applied when the cooldown ends to grant the fire immunity buff. This, naturally, requires quite a bit of coordination, but when pulled off can completely shut down a flamer attack.
-
if a ship has two engineers.
argh! a ship should ALWAYS have two engineers! There shouldn't be an "if" in there!
A single engineer cannot keep the entire ship chem sprayed, which is necessary when dealing with flames. Also, I'm unsure why pyra balloons are singled out as needing chem spray, but not other balloons? All balloons are equally (read: EXTREMELY) susceptible to fire damage and if you've only got an extinguisher, that flamethrower will keep igniting it and you'll be on the ground dying a messy death.
If you have THREE engineers, it can be good to have the third bring an extinguisher in case one of the first two let the chem spray go down -- even for two engies it can be tough to keep everything sprayed.
-
Also, I'm unsure why pyra balloons are singled out as needing chem spray, but not other balloons? All balloons are equally (read: EXTREMELY) susceptible to fire damage and if you've only got an extinguisher, that flamethrower will keep igniting it and you'll be on the ground dying a messy death.
I don't think it's being singled out as needing chem spray, but some people are less inclined to use chem on other balloons simply because the Pyra's balloon is so easy to keep sprayed due to its proximity to the upper left gun, whereas other ships' balloons take slightly longer to reach.
I absolutely agree, however, that chem spray is pretty much necessary on all ships' balloons... Except maybe the Spire's. That thing's a long way away from everything, you don't really get any good chances to spray it.
-
I'm just going to say Yes.......
-
the fire ext does have its uses. chem spray is definitely more useful, and is mandatory for nearly any ship. the instances I'd think to have a non-main engineer bring the ext is if they have enough to worry about, and have few components to worry about for keeping a fire maintained.
like the pyra, if I were to have a buff gungineer up top, that buff gungi will take an extinguisher. they're worrying about buffing and bringing ships down. maintaining the balloon is their highest priority, yes, but with so many duties, I think not having to run a chem spray circuit in addition would outweigh the added fire protection - especially if drogue chute is on hand. but, if they're not worrying about buff, I'd probably have them run chem spray.
so yeah, extinguisher has its uses, just not as much of them. depends upon the ship and the crew load out.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Everyone says i'm stupid, but i believe in the extinguisher. Especially for you people in competitive matches, fire is hardly the main threat. So during any engagement that lasts longer than chem spray, you will have a way to put out any fires with 2 seconds less of a cooldown.
-
Everyone says i'm stupid, but i believe in the extinguisher. Especially for you people in competitive matches, fire is hardly the main threat. So during any engagement that lasts longer than chem spray, you will have a way to put out any fires with 2 seconds less of a cooldown.
Couldn't agree more.
-
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.
This. Soooooo this. Add clickorgy to another repairtool please.
-
when your engineers know how to properly chem spray and someone is flaming you
(http://i.lvme.me/r0bhuw1.jpg)