Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: BlackenedPies on March 26, 2015, 01:06:11 pm
-
The extinguisher is the default tool but is incapable of dealing with flamethrowers and general repairs regardless of skill. To alleviate this problem Muse should change the extinguisher based on community recommendations.
To make the extinguisher useful (but still inferior) either the cooldown or immunity time could be changed. Two suggestions are remove the cooldown or increase immunity to 5-8 seconds. We need a simple, balanced, and agreed upon solution in order for there to be any likelihood of change.
-
Have to agree on this.
Either; remove the cooldown or increase immunity to 5-8 seconds.
Both would make the tool more user-friendly. Right now it is and has always been the poor cousin to chemspray and it should not be so.
-
I quite like the idea of removing the cooldown. I think that would be a great buff. If, however, we were to make it equally viable yo chem, I think the best change would be to allow ext to be used during cooldowns
-
Yeah people have been suggesting this for awhile now (Maybe a full year). my personal idea would be to reduce cooldown to 2 seconds and immunity up to 4 seconds that way it allows you to nurse one component if your continually getting hit by flames and just allows you to clear all the fire out and get everything working again a little faster.
-
I quite like the idea of removing the cooldown. I think that would be a great buff. If, however, we were to make it equally viable yo chem, I think the best change would be to allow ext to be used during cooldowns
I dont like the idea of that at all it gives it too much fire clear power and would just override chemspray cause you would be able to clear fire and repair faster than it could accumulate and deal damage. 2 engineers working together can cover all components in like 3 seconds sure repairing would slow them down abit but that just doent give fire enough time to deal any damage that wouldn't just be repaired.
-
I think that chem should remain superior to the extinguisher but with more skill required.
Using during cooldowns could be a fix, but I foresee problems. It may be confusing for players who aren't used to using a tool on cooldown and tanking would involve spamming.
Spamming is a reason why I don't like removing cooldown altogether. 1 second cooldown with moderate immunity (4-6 sec) sounds balanced to me.
-
I think that chem should remain superior to the extinguisher but with more skill required.
Using during cooldowns could be a fix, but I foresee problems. It may be confusing for players who aren't used to using a tool on cooldown and tanking would involve extinguisher spamming.
Spamming is a reason why I don't like removing cooldown altogether. 1 second cooldown with moderate immunity (4-6 sec) sounds balanced to me.
I could not agree more
-
Not entirely serious about this reply but...
Just make fire extinguisher a default tool everyone has (like normal ammo).. and remove its fire immunity..
Yay fire extinguisher is now useful... and fire is even easier to handle..
-
To clarify my position:
No cooldown or use during cooldowns could be confusing and involve spamming.
I think added immunity is the best solution with 5 being on the low side and 10 on the high side.
-
Not entirely serious about this reply but...
Just make fire extinguisher a default tool everyone has (like normal ammo).. and remove its fire immunity..
Yay fire extinguisher is now useful... and fire is even easier to handle..
eh... not a bad suggestion, but ... that'd increase my tool belt to spyglass-extinguisher-spanner-mallet-buff. I don't like pressing '5' in games if I can help it. I almost never (except back in Diablo II) bind things '6'+.
I'm with 'let use extinguisher during cool downs'. So mallet-extinguisher can fight fire almost as well as veteran engineers.
-
I'm for 1 sec cooldown and 5-6 seconds of fire immunity,I find that one of the more interesting aspects of engineering is considering the damage type. Making that hard choice between chemming the fire and malleting the stacks off, or barely managing to mallet the armor back up against a gatling. Extinguishing between cooldowns makes it a boring and braindead weapon. With atleast a second of cooldown you actually have to put a lot more consideration as to when you're going to mallet. Ext shines in situations where you have a variety of fire and actual damage attacking your ship, but prolonged engagements kill it. It could do well against a gat banshee, which is basically a less efffective version of gat flamer, which the ext cant handle, therefore its underwhelming to use. A one second cooldown would make extinguisher even better at something it's already good at over the chem: Shaving off fires and tanking damage at the same time. Whereas chem is more of simply tanking and less extinguishing long as you play it right.
-
I think the best change would be to allow ext to be used during cooldowns
It has been like this about 2 years ago and was quite op. It simply prevented fires from becoming a serious threat. Fires need time to stack up and even more time to deal noteworthy damage - more than needed for another tool usage following the mallet whacking in the repair routine.
I think simply reducing the extinguisher cooldown to zero + perhaps adding some additional cool-down time is the way to go. Either way the extinguisher needs some love.
-
wundsalz, fires stack up a LOT more quickly since the flamer buff. I think it might be worth reconsidering. 9 seconds (mallet cooldown) is a long time for the modern flamer to put stacks on components.
-
I think simply reducing the extinguisher cooldown to zero + perhaps adding some additional cool-down time is the way to go. Either way the extinguisher needs some love.
The issue is that it's not a simple fix because it would be the only tool to react like that. It would also promote spamming a component that is on fire. Most importantly it would not fix the fundamental issue of having any use against flamethrowers other than tanking a critical component.
If the majority like this idea then ok let's do anything to make the extinguisher useful. But I think immunity is best for allowing engineers to repair multiple components under fire. It would also help prepare them for using chem spray.
-
It would also help prepare them for using chem spray.
this is a flawed way of thinking about game balance. the extinguisher and chem spray should be right around equal, with the advantage of using either one dictated by the composition of the teams in the game. one should not be thought of as training wheels for the other.
the decision between the two should be more akin to the choice between standard repair and buffing engineer. it depends on who and what is on both teams in the game to decide between the two general engineer builds. The same must be true of the fire fighting tools and it wont be solved with just a simple buff/change to the extinguisher, it will require adjustments to every other part of the system as well.
-
this is a flawed way of thinking about game balance. the extinguisher and chem spray should be right around equal, with the advantage of using either one dictated by the composition of the teams in the game. one should not be thought of as training wheels for the other.
My opinion is that chem spray should be better when done right because it requires more skill. The extinguisher should be made viable enough for use in pub matches like spire bottom or goldfish top. At least one chem per ship should still be necessary for most pub matches.
I think that cooldown should be reduced and immunity increased. 2-3 second cooldown with 5-8 second immunity. I don't think that removing cooldown is the right choice because it would change the game. The solution needs to be simple and balanced. But then banshees would be useless.
If the extinguisher had 9 sec immunity I would take back everything I've said about flamer OP. What a balanced gun it would be.
-
Asked about it on the DevChat and no one seems to see the need for buff.
-
Asked about it on the DevChat and no one seems to see the need for buff.
Yet they think the Pyra needs a nerf...
GG devs bad at their own game
-
@up, Good point, it's exactly the same case
I e-mailed them and also linked the thread. I hope I can convince them to at least decrease the cooldown by a second or two.
-
I've got pretty ordinary answer, but Howard wrote that he personally agrees, although he is not sure what the decision will be.
-
It might be interesting if it only invoked a one-second cooldown on components, but the extinguisher itself had a three-second cooldown.
Or maybe if it reduced ignition chance on components by 25% for 20 seconds instead of a 3-second fireproofing, but only on components not already on fire?
I dunno, those are probably dumb ideas I came up with.
-
Return the game back to 1.1 where Chem only reduced the chance of fire and leave extinguish the same. Then you'll solve this problem once and for all. No more of this silly chem meta.
That time period was the only time in the history of the game where you actually wanted both chem and extinguish on ships. Lot of people demanded extinguish but I remember a lot of captains insisting on at least 1 chem to help protect the ship. But it wasn't the end all solution. Fire could still get out of hand if you let it.
-
Is there a Gilder drinking game yet? If so, there needs to be a "take a shot everytime Gilder mentions 1.1/1.2" rule added
-
Is there a Gilder drinking game yet? If so, there needs to be a "take a shot everytime Gilder mentions 1.1/1.2" rule added
Not my fault a lot of the problems we complain about today were introduced by Muse in 1.2. That and much of the playerbase from then left already so all we got are a bunch of scrubs who have no clue how good things were. If I don't speak it, this game would be Turrets of Icarus and only a bunch of old men with hard ons for stationary combat would be those having any enjoyment in GOIO.
-
ok surely this thread is about an extinguisher that buffs.
-
ok surely this thread is about an extinguisher that buffs.
Agree. Thread title may be misleading. Someone fix that plz
Does the Extinguisher need a buff? No, I don't think so. I don't think that would help in any way to force people to use extinguisher. Experienced engineers always will prefer chem over it. Chem cycles are part of the game, where the real skills count.
Buffs like ability to extinguish while on cooldown are for me completely ridiculous, because they will break current meta and make chem useless.
-
I think for engineers it's less of a question of "do I need chem spray," and more of a question of "can I get away with taking extinguisher instead?"
Off-hand, the weapons I look for to answer that question are flamer, banshee, and... uh...I think that's it? Oh yeah, Hades. And also gunners who are crazy enough to take incendiary rounds. I mean, hwacha can start fires, though it normally just explodes everything. Artemis can also start fires, but not very commonly. Flare gun always starts tons of fires, but extinguisher serves as a reactionary counter nearly as effectively as when chem spray is used protectively.
Weapons designed to actually start fires are just so popular, though, that at least one chem spray is almost always needed, and two is just way the hell safer.
-
How thread title is misleading? Buff is the anthonym of the word 'nerf'.
Nobody wants to "force" extinguisher onto anyone. I'd rather want extinguisher to be perhaps a second but still reasonable choice. Now vast majority of veterans say that chem is a must. Go chem or go home. Or at least to see builds 1 chem + 1 ext more viable.
-
Or at least to see builds 1 chem + 1 ext more viable.
That's the intention. The extinguisher is the default tool but has no use against the main source of fires (flame).
-
Or at least to see builds 1 chem + 1 ext more viable.
That's the intention. The extinguisher is the default tool but has no use against the main source of fires (flame).
As I've said earlier, compared to chem the current extinguisher is meant for dealing with two damage types. Like say, exting the hull and malleting it before the gatling takes down your armor. Unfortunately that is very situational.
And I'll state my ext buff proposal again: Adjust the cooldown and fire immunity time to the point where you can whack a component with the pipe after an extinguish and the immunity would wear off by then. 3 second cooldown and 8 second immunity was my previous suggestion, but now I'm thinking 1 second cooldown and 6 second immunity. You can effectively keep somewhere like the pyra's main deck up forever, it's just that you would have to prioritize and tie yourself to a select few systems and you would need the pipe wrench to pull it off. ( which synergizes with the buff engi, adding a powerful option to their meta and effectively making 1 ext 1 chem viable)
It also makes ext more viable at what it was seemingly intended for: dealing with fire and normal damage at once effectively mid combat.
-
I like 2 and 5 personally. You can extinguish - pipe but there is still fire window and its not nearly as great as chem - mallet - mallet. Therefore chem remains the premier main engineer fire suppression whereas the ext can be used by run arounds. If a component is flamed out you can ext it and slightly repair it and use it. Great for emergencies, but still overall not great for sole repair.
-
Agreed. Extinguisher needs a buff, and I believe the best buff would be to decrease the cooldown time by about 2 seconds.
-
1 second cooldown seems to fast for me. It could cause problems for people with lag or fps problems.
-
Some changes in Devapp if you have it. Don't forget to check it out (and comment in devapp forum or email).
-
so in the dev ap its currently 2 second cooldown and 4 seconds of immunity, it may not sound like much but it does wonders. I could keep the engines on a pyra running for a long time while getting hit with a flamer. If you another 2 other engineers for the hull and balloon you might be able to keep the ship alive indefinitely (probably not but we could test that).
-
so in the dev ap its currently 2 second cooldown and 4 seconds of immunity, it may not sound like much but it does wonders. I could keep the engines on a pyra running for a long time while getting hit with a flamer. If you another 2 other engineers for the hull and balloon you might be able to keep the ship alive indefinitely (probably not but we could test that).
Fire barely does any damage to engines at all, though.
-
Fire barely does any damage to engines at all, though.
yes I know I'm just saying that that 1 second reduction between removing flames and repairing a component really does add up and help with fire fighting.