DUST Search - [REQUEST] Reworking Weapon Type Damage Percentages

Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:

RydogV wrote:

Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:

RydogV wrote:

Finally it would be great to see Damage Modules altered. First their buff effect should be reduced at each level. And second their stacking penalty should be doubled.

Militia/Basic +2%
Enhanced +3%
Complex +5%

The third change would come in the form of a penalty that will also affect weapon performance. So the 'buff' in damage output only affects the characteristic of the weapon that gets a buff based on its type. In addition, module would give the weapon a corresponding 'nerf' to the characteristic of the weapon that already gets a nerf based on its type.

So for example, if you pair a Complex Light Damage Module with a Gallente Blaster, you would get a 5% total increase to the already increased shield damage the weapon gets. But you would also get a corresponding 5% decrease to damage output to armor. As opposed to the buff you get to both shield and armor damage currently.

Comments Welcome Smile

Nobody would use damage mods if they were like this.
Not only would they be relatively ineffective even without the nerf, the nerf makes it so that there is no net benefit to using a damage mod. Instead, people will just fill those slots with shield extenders, the only other highslot option, regardless of what suit type or primary tank type.

It would seem they might be less appealing, especially stacking multiple mods. But I highly doubt it would stop their use altogether. There is value in a 5% damage increase. Look at how much SP players will spend to get the 15% buff that Proficiency gives you. It also opens up the chance to offer variations of the module. Perhaps one that does not incur the penalty but instead costs more ISK or uses more PG/CPU?

It would stop the their use if equipping them nerfs your damage output in some cases.

There is no net benefit to equipping a damage mod in this case. Already, a shield extender is technically more effective than a damage mod in most cases - why would anyone equip something that gives them no net benefit over something that gives them a significant benefit?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
RydogV Shadow Company HQ 594	Posted - 2013.11.13 17:32:00 - [1] - Quote Back in July we got this Dev Blog: http://dust514.com/news/blog/2013/07/weapon-ranges-in-uprising-1.2-and-beyond/ In it, the effectiveness of certain weapon types against a players defensive capabilities (shields & armor) were outlined to some degree. In my opinion, there is not enough differentiation in the effectiveness of a particular weapon between the two defensive characteristics. For example a Hybrid - Plasma weapon does +10% against shields and -10% against armor. This is too subtle that it is barely noticed, especially when weapon proficiency is maxed out. I believe the best approach is to widen these gaps, by making their capabilities MORE distinct and the weapon selection more impactful. To accomplish this you should rework balance effectiveness so that for whatever buff a weapon type gets to once defensive element, it become x2 less effective against the other. Here is a list of how each weapon type would look under this model with some percentage changes incorporated as well: Hybrid - Plasma (short range) Shield +10% Armor -20% Blaster Rifle Shotgun Plasma Cannon Ion Pistol Heavy Weapon (TBA) Projectile (short-medium range) Shield -30% Armor +15% Submachine Gun HMG Combat Rifle Precision Rifle Laser (medium-long range) Shield +20% Armor -40% Scrambler Rifle Scrambler Pistol Laser Rifle Heavy Weapon (TBA) Hybrid - Railgun (long range) Shield -20% Armor +10% Rail Rifle Sniper Rifle Forge Gun Magsec SMG Bolt Pistol Explosive Shield -40% Armor +20% Swarm Launcher Flaylock Pistol Mass Driver Locus Grenades Remote Explosives With these kinds of stats, each weapon type becomes a bit more specialized and encourages different carry combos and of course pushes players to work more as a team when putting together loadouts. Finally it would be great to see Damage Modules altered. First their buff effect should be reduced at each level. And second their stacking penalty should be doubled. Militia/Basic +2% Enhanced +3% Complex +5% The third change would come in the form of a penalty that will also affect weapon performance. So the 'buff' in damage output only affects the characteristic of the weapon that gets a buff based on its type. In addition, module would give the weapon a corresponding 'nerf' to the characteristic of the weapon that already gets a nerf based on its type. So for example, if you pair a Complex Light Damage Module with a Gallente Blaster, you would get a 5% total increase to the already increased shield damage the weapon gets. But you would also get a corresponding 5% decrease to damage output to armor. As opposed to the buff you get to both shield and armor damage currently. Comments Welcome
RydogV Shadow Company HQ 594	Posted - 2013.11.13 18:33:00 - [2] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: RydogV wrote: Finally it would be great to see Damage Modules altered. First their buff effect should be reduced at each level. And second their stacking penalty should be doubled. Militia/Basic +2% Enhanced +3% Complex +5% The third change would come in the form of a penalty that will also affect weapon performance. So the 'buff' in damage output only affects the characteristic of the weapon that gets a buff based on its type. In addition, module would give the weapon a corresponding 'nerf' to the characteristic of the weapon that already gets a nerf based on its type. So for example, if you pair a Complex Light Damage Module with a Gallente Blaster, you would get a 5% total increase to the already increased shield damage the weapon gets. But you would also get a corresponding 5% decrease to damage output to armor. As opposed to the buff you get to both shield and armor damage currently. Comments Welcome Nobody would use damage mods if they were like this. Not only would they be relatively ineffective even without the nerf, the nerf makes it so that there is no net benefit to using a damage mod. Instead, people will just fill those slots with shield extenders, the only other highslot option, regardless of what suit type or primary tank type. It would seem they might be less appealing, especially stacking multiple mods. But I highly doubt it would stop their use altogether. There is value in a 5% damage increase. Look at how much SP players will spend to get the 15% buff that Proficiency gives you. It also opens up the chance to offer variations of the module. Perhaps one that does not incur the penalty but instead costs more ISK or uses more PG/CPU?
RydogV Shadow Company HQ 594	Posted - 2013.11.13 18:35:00 - [3] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: This idea is horrid. That is all. And your comment is profound. Thanks.
RydogV Shadow Company HQ 594	Posted - 2013.11.13 19:44:00 - [4] - Quote Krom Ganesh wrote: Hmmm.... I could see it working for the Hybrids, but I'm not sure about laser and projectiles. The penalty seems incredibly steep. Be interesting if CCP had a single day where they operated with these damage types to see how they are first. Yes, testing would certainly be in order for proper assessment. Of course the x2 figure could be modified if deemed to impractical. Perhaps x1.5 would be more reasonable in the non-Hybrid categories. My main point was that the game should be increased. Such changes could even have an impact on the shortened TTK that many players seem to be concerned about with recent improvements to aim and hit detection.
RydogV Shadow Company HQ 597	Posted - 2013.11.14 14:48:00 - [5] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: RydogV wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: RydogV wrote: Finally it would be great to see Damage Modules altered. First their buff effect should be reduced at each level. And second their stacking penalty should be doubled. Militia/Basic +2% Enhanced +3% Complex +5% The third change would come in the form of a penalty that will also affect weapon performance. So the 'buff' in damage output only affects the characteristic of the weapon that gets a buff based on its type. In addition, module would give the weapon a corresponding 'nerf' to the characteristic of the weapon that already gets a nerf based on its type. So for example, if you pair a Complex Light Damage Module with a Gallente Blaster, you would get a 5% total increase to the already increased shield damage the weapon gets. But you would also get a corresponding 5% decrease to damage output to armor. As opposed to the buff you get to both shield and armor damage currently. Comments Welcome Nobody would use damage mods if they were like this. Not only would they be relatively ineffective even without the nerf, the nerf makes it so that there is no net benefit to using a damage mod. Instead, people will just fill those slots with shield extenders, the only other highslot option, regardless of what suit type or primary tank type. It would seem they might be less appealing, especially stacking multiple mods. But I highly doubt it would stop their use altogether. There is value in a 5% damage increase. Look at how much SP players will spend to get the 15% buff that Proficiency gives you. It also opens up the chance to offer variations of the module. Perhaps one that does not incur the penalty but instead costs more ISK or uses more PG/CPU? It would stop the their use if equipping them nerfs your damage output in some cases. There is no net benefit to equipping a damage mod in this case. Already, a shield extender is technically more effective than a damage mod in most cases - why would anyone equip something that gives them no net benefit over something that gives them a significant benefit? I guess that makes sense. Even without the negative effect on either armor or shields I do think overall damage output needs to drop and stacking penalties need to increase for Damage Mods. It also does not help that there is a significant lack of options for high slots. As far as the damage over shields argument goes, I would say recent trends and the low TTK have put a higher priority on Damage Mods as of late.