| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SHANN da MAN
D3LTA FORC3
181
   |
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP made their Proficiency Skill the wrong way. Instead of increasing the strongest damage type of the weapon, Proficiency should increase the weakest damage type.
Example : ScR Damage 120% Shield - 80% Armor
Prof 5 increases Shield Damage : ScR Damage 135% Shield - 80% Armor
Prof 5 SHOULD increase Armor : ScR Damage 120% Shield - 95% Armor
To become Proficient in something is to overcome its weakness ... this should mean that Proficiency Skill would increase a weapons weaker Damage type to make the soldier more deadly.
As the Proficiency Skill exists in 1.8 there is really no reason to skill into it ... (in the example above) the shields will already be depleted very rapidly with the base Damage of 120% ... increasing the damage vs. shields will have little effect on the weapon's overall performance.
This leaves little to no reason for someone to Skill into a weapon's Proficiency, other than being required to be able to equip PROTO/Officer Weapons, as little to no benefit becomes of it.
If Proficiency Skill improved the weapon's WEAKER Damage type there would be incentive for people to skill as high as they could in a weapon's Proficiency, as it would greatly improve the weapon's overall performance.
nothing to see here ... move along
|
Jenova Rhapsodos
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
As a ScR user trembling in the wake of the 1.8 heavies, I would welcome this. 
However it shouldn't happen because it would make the damage profiles of weapons much too similar. |
Dingleburt Bangledack
PiZzA DuDeS
14
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
I can see what you mean, however if the proficiency skill increased damage to a weapon's weakness, damage profiles would no longer exist at all.
Assuming Lvl 5 Proficiency:
AR - 110% shield 105% armor
ScR - 120% shield 95% armor
RR - 105% shield 110% armor (I can't actually remember what damage profile for the RR is but this is close at the least)
CR - 110% shield 110% armor ( )
With stats like that, why would we even need damage profiles? Better yet, why would anyone use anything but the Combat Rifle? |
Kitt 514
True North.
132
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
confirming projectiles are wtfbbqsolopwn now with minmatar assault suit bonuses |
Ripley Riley
906
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
SHANN da MAN wrote:To become Proficient in something is to overcome its weakness ... this should mean that Proficiency Skill would increase a weapons weaker Damage type to make the soldier more deadly.
...Semantics...
It could also mean knowing how to play to the weapon's strengths.
Next.
"I need not food nor water. Your tears alone sustain me." - Ripley Riley
|
XANDER KAG
Red Star.
EoN.
602
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dingleburt Bangledack wrote:I can see what you mean, however if the proficiency skill increased damage to a weapon's weakness, damage profiles would no longer exist at all. AR - 110% shield 105% armor ScR - 120% shield 95% armor RR - 105% shield 110% armor (I can't actually remember what damage profile for the RR but this is close at the least) CR - 110% shield 110% armor ( ) With stats like that, why would we even need damage profiles? Better yet, why would anyone use anything but the Combat Rifle?
^this,
Who says you can't kill in style?
When CCP plays Dust514
|
Rusty Shallows
1064
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
SHANN da MAN wrote:No incentive for Proficiency...
With the changes to TTK some people are going to be scrambling for every scrap of DPS to be competitive.
BTW I agree your idea but my guess is CCP is trying to emphasize the damage types to the Nth degree.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
TechMechMeds
SWAMPERIUM
2788
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Either I'm really good on my alt or you are justifying an op buff very well.
I support this though lol.
Level 2 forum warrior.
Dust on the ps4 asap please
I sold my family to the Amarr for isk, its a valid tactic
|
CLONE117
True Pros Forever
717
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
if we kept the current proficiency skills as they r currently for 1.8. those maxed out from the math ive done for the galente ar.
proficiency maxed with the new starts will scarcely match the base 1.7 damage levels.
an un specced mlt ar wont kill anything. thats bad when considering newer players.
ppl can easily get over 1400 hp. we r returning to where it will take full entire clips just to kill individual players. pub stomps most likely will be getting worse. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
10491
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
I disagree because it would make damage profiles too similar.
But I also disagree with the current proficiency change because it makes them too exaggerated to the point where there's nothing to do but dual tank.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
|
|
|
Rodd of Nor
Nor Clan Combat Logistics
37
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
I disagree and it has nothing to do with balance or with making the skill "better" or "more desirable to skill into" its because of the name...
Proficiency, when I get proficient with an item I get proficient in what it is meant for.
For example when you get proficient with a guitar you get better at using it as a guitar... you can play it as a drum type instrument (acoustic guitars anyway) but that not what you think of as being proficient with it.
or if one is considered proficient with a long bow its because of there ability to shoot arrows with it not there ability to use it as a club.
now these are examples taken to an extreme but when you get proficient with a weapon designed to damage shields you get better at doing just that damaging shields.
Just my opinion, but its a great topic for discussion 
It is better to be thought an idiot, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
|
Aisha Ctarl
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
3822
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
Yes it makes sense but would be a bad implementation because the weapons would lose their identity because their damage profiles would all become far too similar.
I could list the ways how we Amarr are better than you, but your lesser mind wouldn't comprehend it.
|
COVERT SUBTERFUGE
PSU GHOST SYNDICATE
DARKSTAR ARMY
560
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
My master race Matari scout has good reason for proficiency on those Nova Knives. 
Proud Minmatar scout - Republic Merc 6/10
Immune to bitter/jaded vet syndrome
Roll with the punches instead of QQing
|
Malkai Inos
Onikanabo Brigade
Caldari State
1191
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nope, proficiency is part of specialization. Specialization does not mean "overcome your weakness" but "further define and amplify your strength"
You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4890
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
No, I like where you're coming from but that wouldn't be for the best..
Prof. only affecting the primary damage is a good way to go. It also diversifies game play which is a much needed change. The real issue is the upcoming dual tankers and heavies that are on the horizon with 1.8.
1st Official Role Playing Gallente Asshole -Title Awarded by True Adamance
|
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
7268
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Proficiency in 1.8 is indeed a problem, this just isn't the way to fix it as stated by the responses here. Proficiency in all reality just needs to change to something non-damage related and perhaps weapon-specific.
CPM1 Candidacy Thread
|
Zahle Undt
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
814
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
With prof changes I really wish I didn't have to drop a couple million on that skill before I can even drop even more SP on fitting optimization.
Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
|
knight of 6
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1566
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 20:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
i wouldn't be against the idea. it seems reasonable.
GÇ£Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I am dampened.GÇ¥
Ko6 scout,
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2839
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 20:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Prof idea makes sense to me
It becomes better at what its supposed to do ie FG - armor
Intelligence is OP
|
Beck Weathers
Ghosts of Dawn
General Tso's Alliance
659
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 20:07:00 -
[20] - Quote
Well if your laser has 135% efficancy to shields you will be grining as you cut down all the Cal heavys + cal scouts like butter on a hot day
These forums must be located in the Californin country side, there is whine as far as the eye can see.
|
|
|
8213
Capital Acquisitions LLC
Renegade Alliance
1677
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 20:14:00 -
[21] - Quote
It would only apply to the rifles.
What about the lolPLC, Shotgun, Swarm, Laser, etc...
Fish in a bucket!
Darken's Testament
SKIPPY
|
SHANN da MAN
D3LTA FORC3
C0VEN
186
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dingleburt Bangledack wrote:I can see what you mean, however if the proficiency skill increased damage to a weapon's weakness, damage profiles would no longer exist at all. Assuming Lvl 5 Proficiency: AR - 110% shield 105% armor ScR - 120% shield 95% armor RR - 105% shield 110% armor (I can't actually remember what damage profile for the RR is but this is close at the least) CR - 110% shield 110% armor ( ) With stats like that, why would we even need damage profiles? Better yet, why would anyone use anything but the Combat Rifle?
If specialization were switched to a weapon's weaker damage type, it would be better if it were only 2% per level instead of 3%
Making (at lvl 5 Prof):
AR - 110% Shield, 100% Armor
ScR - 120% Shield, 90% Armor
RR - 100% Shield, 110 % Armor
CR - 105% Shield, 110% Armor
This would give players incentive to Skill into Proficiency, and still keep the weapons individual uniqueness.
You must also keep in mind that it takes 1.5 Million SP to Skill Proficiency to level 5. With the Proficiency Skill enhancing the weapon's already stronger Damage Type the SP investment isn't worth the benefit (and very few will waste their SP on it for no real improvement in weapon performance) ... But if the Proficiency Skill were to enhance the weaker Damage Type, players would readily invest their SP in it (the SP sink CCP desires) to have a noticeable improvement in their weapon's performance.
The point of my OP was not to suggest a straight swap, rather to point out that there is no incentive for players to invest so much SP for so little gain.
nothing to see here ... move along
|
excillon
Nova Corps Marines
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
332
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
I agree there should be an incentive for finishing a weapon. Either add another 5% damage bonus (not per levell) to the end result or something like that. |
Zaaeed Massani
RisingSuns
36
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
XANDER KAG wrote:Dingleburt Bangledack wrote:I can see what you mean, however if the proficiency skill increased damage to a weapon's weakness, damage profiles would no longer exist at all. AR - 110% shield 105% armor ScR - 120% shield 95% armor RR - 105% shield 110% armor (I can't actually remember what damage profile for the RR but this is close at the least) CR - 110% shield 110% armor ( ) With stats like that, why would we even need damage profiles? Better yet, why would anyone use anything but the Combat Rifle? ^this,
|
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
290
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
Wait, I thought that the CR had the opposite profile of Scr. Wouldn't it be 80% shields 120% armor?
So with Prof at 5 (using current mechanics)
SCR: 138% shields, 80% armor.
CR: 80% shields, 138% armor.
RR: 90% shields, 126% armor.
AR: 126% shields, 90% armor.
Using the proposed mechanic
SCR: 120% shields, 92% armor.
CR: 92% shields, 120% armor.
RR: 103% shields, 110% armor.
AR: 110% shields, 103% armor.
I'm not advocating for either side, I just want to make sure I understand the damage profiles. |
Joel II X
Dah Gods O Bacon
1489
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
But it would completely change projectile weapons. The CR would go from an armor destroyer to a shield destroyer.
I think it's fine with the upcoming proficiencies. |
Joel II X
Dah Gods O Bacon
1489
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
Hagintora wrote:Wait, I thought that the CR had the opposite profile of Scr. Wouldn't it be 80% shields 120% armor?
So with Prof at 5 (using current mechanics)
SCR: 138% shields, 80% armor.
CR: 80% shields, 138% armor.
RR: 90% shields, 126% armor.
AR: 126% shields, 90% armor.
Using the proposed mechanic
SCR: 120% shields, 92% armor.
CR: 92% shields, 120% armor.
RR: 103% shields, 110% armor.
AR: 110% shields, 103% armor.
I'm not advocating for either side, I just want to make sure I understand the damage profiles.
No. CR is 110% against armor 95% against shields. |
Mossellia Delt
Militaires Sans Jeux
1013
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
This is why you spec into an opposite damage profiled sidearm.
Join the Channel - CPM1 Candidates - Get to know who's running.
Delt for CPM1
|
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
290
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:Hagintora wrote:Wait, I thought that the CR had the opposite profile of Scr. Wouldn't it be 80% shields 120% armor?
So with Prof at 5 (using current mechanics)
SCR: 138% shields, 80% armor.
CR: 80% shields, 138% armor.
RR: 90% shields, 126% armor.
AR: 126% shields, 90% armor.
Using the proposed mechanic
SCR: 120% shields, 92% armor.
CR: 92% shields, 120% armor.
RR: 103% shields, 110% armor.
AR: 110% shields, 103% armor.
I'm not advocating for either side, I just want to make sure I understand the damage profiles. No. CR is 110% against armor 95% against shields.
That's odd, Why is the CR different from the rest? Shouldn't it be the weakest weapon against shields? |
Kristoff Atruin
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1793
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 17:59:00 -
[30] - Quote
Something to consider is that 3% of a bigger number is larger than 3% of a smaller number. Putting the proficiency on the weaker damage type would actually give you less overall damage output.
Quote:This is why you spec into an opposite damage profiled sidearm.
Or bring a friend with a rifle that complements yours. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |