I don't understand the system by which my mercenary's knowledge of firearms increases the maximum range the firearm can reach and would prefer for this to be handled by purchasable gear. I believe that sharpshooter will no longer increase range but have the same issue with it reducing dispersion, unless explicitly told that skilling into sharpshooter actually increases my accuracy, given the perfectly reasonable alternative of making upgrades for the gear with the same effect.

Moving into the second angle from which I disagree with the current system: shifting responsibility for the direct increase of weapon effectiveness into gear rather than into skills better fits the risk/reward philosophy in my opinion.

I can skill into making my militia AR faster, better, stronger. It still costs the same as the militia AR of Joe Newberry so when I am in a battle with Joe, our opportunity for reward is equal (actually, the situation favours me because my identical gun does more damage) but his risk is greater. This doesn't sit well with me. Similarly, I can skill into being "better at shields" or "better at armour" and from an RP perspective, I don't know what the kitten that even means, while from a gameplay balance perspective we've got the same issue that both Mr Newberry and I paid the same amount for our gear... but mine is better.

I would greatly prefer that my mercenary's personal capabilities governed things like base speed (modified by gear weight), reload speed (modified by reload complexity), accuracy (ability to point weapon at the reticle, rather than dispersion of bullets around the reticle)... while gear and modifications to gear (all putting a dent in my wallet and so increasing my risk) governed things like clip size, weapon range, weapon damage, shield/armour effectiveness.

Discuss. We're running out of time to change it if we're not going the right way at present.

It's still the EVE universe so there has to be a degree of semblance. Also, what you're suggesting almost eliminates the purpose of learning new skills in the first place. The game rewards us for specializing into a specific role that's most comfortable with personal play style. If you take that away, it's nothing but another generic FPS.

You can reward someone for specialising into AR without making the AR inexplicably shoot more damaging bullets by improving the parts of AR operation which are dependent on the operator.

You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening on the 6th then. Along with skills that add passive bonuses, dropsuits are going to have them too.

Also, what you're suggesting almost eliminates the purpose of learning new skills in the first place.

You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening on the 6th then. Along with skills that add passive bonuses, dropsuits are going to have them too.

It's still the EVE universe so there has to be a degree of semblance. Also, what you're suggesting almost eliminates the purpose of learning new skills in the first place. The game rewards us for specializing into a specific role that's most comfortable with personal play style. If you take that away, it's nothing but another generic FPS.

Thanks for that ^.^

I don't understand why so many want this to be the same game -.-

^^ I don't understand why everyone wants yet another generic shooter.

While I agree that many things twitch shooters have done are better than what CCP is doing, retaining the SP reward base is really the only link to EVE you should maintain.

a) If I know how better to wield a weapon, i'll know where to shoot to make that weapon more effective... how to compensate for bullet drop for range, or other things (yes I know there's no bullet drop in the game atm..) but taking examples of how SKILLs with usage of a weapon can affect the things that currently plague it.

What I don't get, is that knowledge of the weapon makes it require less CPU to fit? or Powergrid? If you want familiarity SP skill removed, start with the fitting ones, since they make even less sense. Knowing a weapon, doesn't mean it suddenly uses less resources.

^^ I don't understand why everyone wants yet another generic shooter.

IMO, moving away from gameplay mechanics which are poorly explained in lore is moving away from being a generic shooter. Supporting game immersion is where an MMOFPS should shine.

Curious to know why you think this almost eliminates the need to skill into anything.

If we had something like:

AR Sharpshooter unlocks access to new scopes that increase a gun's effective range (instead of raw passive range bonus)
AR Operation unlocks access to new grips that decrease recoil (instead of a raw passive recoil reduction)
AR Proficiency unlocks access to new ammo that increase damage (instead of raw passive damage bonus)

You would still need to skill into things to get the benefits. This just makes it so in order to access those bonuses, there is a cost to the player (other than having to spend SP). It also allows for those benefits to come at some kind of negative (eg. damage bonus ammo giving higher recoil), rather than just more more more.

Just because things are being done a given way in the next build doesn't mean we have to accept that as the best way to do things.

^^ I don't understand why everyone wants yet another generic shooter.

We have skills directly uploaded into our brains, thus passive skilling.

It's in the lore, mate.

We have skills directly uploaded into our brains, thus passive skilling.

It's in the lore, mate.

I understand and don't care where the skills come from, skill in your brain don't make your bullets travel further.

EDIT: Did you just read the subject and respond to that? This isn't a criticism of passive skills as a concept it's a criticism of the execution of passive skills in DUST.

it also allows for those benefits to come at some kind of negative (eg. damage bonus ammo giving higher recoil), rather than just more more more.

It's still the EVE universe so there has to be a degree of semblance. Also, what you're suggesting almost eliminates the purpose of learning new skills in the first place. The game rewards us for specializing into a specific role that's most comfortable with personal play style. If you take that away, it's nothing but another generic FPS.

What he said. What is the point of skilling up if it does nothing for you?

Give an AR to a navy seal and then the same gun to a new recruit and you tell me the difference. Put a new pilot in a plane and then an air forced trained top gun and show me the difference. Put me in a f1 race car and then Lewis Hamilton and tell me the difference. The only difference is experience and skill, all other things equal means skill wins.

The whole thread is pointless because this build is dead

If attention to lore can upset your immersion in gameplay, I think you need to stop playing an FPS.
Have you seen the description for the nanohives? That travesty should be plain offensive to anyone with a basic grasp of physics.But if I thought about that every time I threw one down, I'd never finish a match.

I can skill into making my militia AR faster, better, stronger. It still costs the same as the militia AR of Joe Newberry so when I am in a battle with Joe, our opportunity for reward is equal (actually, the situation favours me because my identical gun does more damage) but his risk is greater. This doesn't sit well with me. Similarly, I can skill into being "better at shields" or "better at armour" and from an RP perspective, I don't know what the kitten that even means, while from a gameplay balance perspective we've got the same issue that both Mr Newberry and I paid the same amount for our gear... but mine is better.

I would greatly prefer that my mercenary's personal capabilities governed things like base speed (modified by gear weight), reload speed (modified by reload complexity), accuracy (ability to point weapon at the reticle, rather than dispersion of bullets around the reticle)... while gear and modifications to gear (all putting a dent in my wallet and so increasing my risk) governed things like clip size, weapon range, weapon damage, shield/armour effectiveness.

Discuss. We're running out of time to change it if we're not going the right way at present.

Immersion is entirely supported by lore. CCP keep using the word "verisimilitude" but they need to commit to it further, IMO.

It's not about scientifically testable explanations, it's about doing enough to maintain suspension of disbelief.