DUST Search - No incentive for Proficiency ...

All Channels

General Discussions

No incentive for Proficiency ...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.

Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 815	Posted - 2014.03.07 17:59:00 - [31] - Quote Proficiency shouldn't increase damage directly, but increase the application of that damage. AR could perhaps increase range. Rail rifle could decrease kick. Scrambler could decrease heat build up. Something along those lines. Something that isn't a direct DPS increase, but makes the current DPS it has easier to apply. Best PVE idea I've seen.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4925	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:01:00 - [32] - 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. . Combat Rifle Damage Profile is 95% Shield, 105-110% Armor. Either way it has the best damage profile in the game with no drawback for it. The SCR can get away with the 80% because of the higher Alpha damage but if you did that with projectiles they'd be hard to penetrate shields. (not that I care or anything) *1st Official Role Playing Gallente Asshole* -Title Awarded by True Adamance
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4925	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:03:00 - [33] - Quote Hagintora wrote: That's odd, Why is the CR different from the rest? Shouldn't it be the weakest weapon against shields? Explosives are the thing that are 80% shields - 120% armor. Or at least it should be. Here's the answers from a Dev Blog *1st Official Role Playing Gallente Asshole* -Title Awarded by True Adamance
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 290	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:06:00 - [34] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Hagintora wrote: That's odd, Why is the CR different from the rest? Shouldn't it be the weakest weapon against shields? Explosives are the thing that are 80% shields - 120% armor. Or at least it should be. Ya but if they applied that to the CR wouldn't that make it, i don't know, balanced?
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4926	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:08:00 - [35] - Quote Hagintora wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Hagintora wrote: That's odd, Why is the CR different from the rest? Shouldn't it be the weakest weapon against shields? Explosives are the thing that are 80% shields - 120% armor. Or at least it should be. Ya but if they applied that to the CR wouldn't that make it, i don't know, balanced? It would certainly be better than this 95%-110% nonsense. *1st Official Role Playing Gallente Asshole* -Title Awarded by True Adamance
SHANN da MAN D3LTA FORC3 C0VEN 187	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:15:00 - [36] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Proficiency shouldn't increase damage directly, but increase the application of that damage. AR could perhaps increase range. Rail rifle could decrease kick. Scrambler could decrease heat build up. Something along those lines. Something that isn't a direct DPS increase, but makes the current DPS it has easier to apply. You've got the intent of my OP ... everyone else is stuck on my (simple, un-thought out) example of a direct swap. The intent of my OP was to offer a suggestion of a change to make the Proficiency Skill worth spending 1.5 Million SP to Max Skill. Anything to make a weapon more overall effective would be preferable to the current 1.8 Proficiency Skill. nothing to see here ... move along
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2071	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:18:00 - [37] - Quote causes more damage....why wouldn't I get this skill?
SHANN da MAN D3LTA FORC3 C0VEN 187	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:22:00 - [38] - Quote calisk galern wrote: causes more damage....why wouldn't I get this skill? Only causes more damage to your weapon's most effective damage type. This will not appreciably increase your weapon's overall performance. Is this REALLY worth spending 1.5 Million SP to Skill up? nothing to see here ... move along
J'Hiera Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 58	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:26:00 - [39] - Quote Hagintora wrote: That's odd, Why is the CR different from the rest? Shouldn't it be the weakest weapon against shields? Not if assuming the CR uses Depleted Uranium for ammunition. In EVE, that is High Explosive, Medium Kinetic and High Thermal damage. Thermal is roughly equal against shields and armor, while Kinetic and Explosive more into armor. Resist mods aside. The fact that PR is so weak against armor however, makes no sense. It should fire Thermal/Kinetic and be average at both. But this isnt EVE, so... Just trying to justify the damage profile for the Cr :P
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2072	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:27:00 - [40] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: calisk galern wrote: causes more damage....why wouldn't I get this skill? Causes only slightly more damage to your weapon's most effective damage type. This will not appreciably increase your weapon's overall performance. Is this REALLY worth spending 1.5 Million SP to Skill up? when you have 40 million sp you'd be surprised what you find worth spending sp on

SHANN da MAN D3LTA FORC3 C0VEN 188	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:31:00 - [41] - Quote calisk galern wrote: SHANN da MAN wrote: calisk galern wrote: causes more damage....why wouldn't I get this skill? Causes only slightly more damage to your weapon's most effective damage type. This will not appreciably increase your weapon's overall performance. Is this REALLY worth spending 1.5 Million SP to Skill up? when you have 40 million sp you'd be surprised what you find worth spending sp on Well, you are the exception ... MOST players in this game have less than half the SP you do ... and spending a month's worth of SP on a marginally effective skill is probably out of their reach when there are so many more skills that produce a better effect per SP spent nothing to see here ... move along
Ld Collins Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 119	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:33:00 - [42] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: 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. Proficiency or being proficienct doesnt mean you're better at what you aren't good at. Proficiency is more of honing or enchancing your skills that you are good at. Setting things up this way allows mercs to make fits to counter other damage types more effectively. In 1.7 you couldnt shielf tank against a CBR user and you couldnt Armor tank against a RR. This became so apparent that heavies just started picking up RR CBR and SCR. Lets see how things play out before we make up our minds.
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2072	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:33:00 - [43] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: calisk galern wrote: SHANN da MAN wrote: calisk galern wrote: causes more damage....why wouldn't I get this skill? Causes only slightly more damage to your weapon's most effective damage type. This will not appreciably increase your weapon's overall performance. Is this REALLY worth spending 1.5 Million SP to Skill up? when you have 40 million sp you'd be surprised what you find worth spending sp on Well, you are the exception ... MOST players in this game have less than half the SP you do ... and spending a month's worth of SP on a marginally effective skill is probably out of their reach when there are so many more skills that produce a better effect per SP spent but eventually that won't be the case, the beauty of the sp system is it never stops. sure i'll agree these skills should not be on the top of your list, but they will be on their somewhere.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 290	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:42:00 - [44] - Quote J'Hiera wrote: Hagintora wrote: That's odd, Why is the CR different from the rest? Shouldn't it be the weakest weapon against shields? Not if assuming the CR uses Depleted Uranium for ammunition. In EVE, that is High Explosive, Medium Kinetic and High Thermal damage. Thermal is roughly equal against shields and armor, while Kinetic and Explosive more into armor. Resist mods aside. The fact that PR is so weak against armor however, makes no sense. It should fire Thermal/Kinetic and be average at both. But this isnt EVE, so... Just trying to justify the damage profile for the Cr :P I appreciate the attempt at justification, as I'm unfamiliar with EVE, but as you said, this isn't EVE. I can't help feeling that changing the profile of the CR to 80% shields and 120% armor would be a better qay to balance the weapon.
SILVERBACK 02 SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 509	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:46:00 - [45] - Quote he makes a perfectly valid point perhaps they will introduce a branching skill tree that splits off simliar to this skill tree shown below http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEGtHe9eGLU would be awsome level 0 forum warrior weapon of choice: MARK V PYTHON. -STB sky marshall
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2172	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:51:00 - [46] - Quote No, it works better this way, it encourages diversity in play and squads. If you have a guy with a Scrambler you are best of giving him rail or projectile tech friends. You will get people workimg on specific tank types. Amarr will become the bane of caldari, gallante of Amarr, and Minmatar of Gallante, while caldari slaughter minmatar. Removing the penalties is a bad idea as it allows for the weapon to be used against any tank type. Which in relaity completly nullifies the point of having different tank types, we might as well just give everyone health. Leave it as it is and watch as people play more varied fits. The only thing I would do is change the projectile to do -20% to shields and +20% to armour (effectively make explosives/projectile the same damage type) otherwise those ACRs are getting to good an advantage to pass up. 125% on Armour 95% on Shields at prof 5 Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
The Terminator T-1000 Skynet Incorporated 186	Posted - 2014.03.07 19:16:00 - [47] - Quote I want all my prof SP back!
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 166	Posted - 2014.03.08 05:27:00 - [48] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: 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. Overall, No. Why? it's really quite simple. If this were the case, people would cry for nerfs. It would make every weapon the same, except for playstyle. That's exactly how it'd end up. We'd end up with the longest range weapon with the fastest shooting gun at the top, and everthing else underneath. Specialization factor would suck. People would all end up using the same weapon. I don't know about you but i don't want to run into a team where every person is using parallel weapons. Facing off with Full RR teams right now is horrible. I couldn't imagine it if it damaged shields like it does armor. It'd suck! But hey if you want everybody using the same weapon maybe they should look at your idea. If you don't, then -1. -1. -Sor. Click Here to set up a Character that will get an AR, SMG, and a Caldari BPO
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 166	Posted - 2014.03.08 05:31:00 - [49] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: calisk galern wrote: SHANN da MAN wrote: calisk galern wrote: causes more damage....why wouldn't I get this skill? Causes only slightly more damage to your weapon's most effective damage type. This will not appreciably increase your weapon's overall performance. Is this REALLY worth spending 1.5 Million SP to Skill up? when you have 40 million sp you'd be surprised what you find worth spending sp on Well, you are the exception ... MOST players in this game have less than half the SP you do ... and spending a month's worth of SP on a marginally effective skill is probably out of their reach when there are so many more skills that produce a better effect per SP spent you do realize that proficiency is a specialization skill. Specialized players can do amazing around 10M, with dedicated SP into a certain build/Certain Weapon. Ex: Amarr Sentinel Lvl 5 armor 5 shield 5 hmg 5 prof 5. all at 10m sp. plus other skills. Click Here to set up a Character that will get an AR, SMG, and a Caldari BPO
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1986	Posted - 2014.03.08 05:36:00 - [50] - Quote I'm taking prof straight to four. Probably never taking it to 5. After all, Fitting Opt = 5 PG. Assault ak.0 w/ScR+ScP 4LYFE



Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.