Say you have 3 Damage Modules + Assault Rifle Proficiency 5. Why does your first Damage module receives 87% efficacy, second receive 57%, third 28%. That's right, instead of adding a third damage module on say.. an Assault GK0 Dropsuit you are better off throwing a shield on one of the module slots (That is if you spent into weapon proficiency).

first module is alway exempt from the stacking penalty last i checked.


and from what i can remember, the stacking penalty is there to stop extreme min-maxing creating game imbalances that would then require game rebalancing.

basically its to create diminishing returns and thereby promote diversity.

Same thing is if you have.. say a natural 10% resistance on vehicles, your first Voltaic armour resistance module will have 87% efficacy.

Damage mods are the source of like....any form of weapon imbalance.

But they're here to stay I'm sure

I wish on the kill screen it listed how many damage modules, etc, were being used. A lot of the QQ about this weapon and that weapon are OP would be solved by providing more information. Your standard issue AR glass cannon build will be doing over 50 DMG per bullet with Prof 5 and 3 Complex damage mods.

Sadly not when you have Weapon Proficiency Leveled up, it counts as a module for some reason.

Not true.

Although the module wouldn't have 100% efficiency per say, but that is not because of a stacking penalty of any kind, but rather just how the system is set up. Because the resistance would not be the 10% from skill + the module, but 10% resistance and then the module would add extra resistance based on the new value.

Edit: I'll use an example. If the module is 25% resistance it would be like this:

100% damage taken * 0.9 from the skill = 90% damage taken.

90% damage taken * 0.75 from the module = 67.5% damage taken.

So the module would only add an extra 22.5% resistance even though it was a 25% module. This has nothing to with stacking penalties.

Revealing full stats of players would destroy diversity and encourage stealing of builds, some people don't want that.

I think it would lead to constant shifting and evolution of fits. There may be one dominant fit for a while, but new fits would be developed as a counter, and then counters would be develope for those fits, etc.