Fleeting Expertise? How About Limited Expertise?

[Metalgearfox]

This mod is causing issues with AoE spam abilities.

 

How about we rework it to be + efficiency - range?

 

That way, the impact of AoE spam could be minimized while still letting people spam.

[Husla]

Should've posted that in the hundreds of threads already mentioning it.

 

Btw, DE already know of this and are adding a new mechanic for enemies. Should've researched a little bit more.

[7grims]

Makes more sense to be +efficiency and -damage

 

In other words, the opposite, the other side of the coin, of the blind rage mod.

[Metalgearfox]

Makes more sense to be +efficiency and -damage

 

In other words, the opposite, the other side of the coin, of the blind rage mod.

Eh, but the issue isn't just the stupidly high damage on some AoE but also the CC.

 

If we make it ranged base, like 10% efficiency per 20% range, they can spam but it will just be a very small radius. 

Edited May 20, 2015 by Metalgearfox

[Keyse]

Don't forget this is like Saryn's main mod. It makes Miasma cheaper and stronger since it packs more punch the less duration it has.
Also, what's the point of having an AOE if the area is reduced? Wouldn't that make it just an E?

[Metalgearfox]

Also, what's the point of having an AOE if the area is reduced? Wouldn't that make it just an E?

It makes more sense as - radius per point of efficiency for AoE.

 

AoE is powerful because it hits large areas.

So its cost should scale based off that.

 

Reduced cost should = reduced range. 

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

It shouldn't provide a 300% bonus. Nothing else in the game has such an extreme progression curve, yet someone with maxed efficiency can cast 4 times as much as someone with base efficiency. If it calculated efficiency bonuses properly it wouldn't be as much of a problem (although it may still need tweaks).

[Metalgearfox]

It shouldn't provide a 300% bonus. Nothing else in the game has such an extreme progression curve, yet someone with maxed efficiency can cast 4 times as much as someone with base efficiency. If it calculated efficiency bonuses properly it wouldn't be as much of a problem (although it may still need tweaks).

The thing is, it seems like people enjoy button mashing.

 

I think that they should be able to have  their fun... but, you know, not ruin the game for everyone near them. 

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

The thing is, it seems like people enjoy button mashing.

 

I think that they should be able to have  their fun... but, you know, not ruin the game for everyone near them.

They could still do it, just they'd have to find a cheaper skill than 4.

[DelialFallen]

Some people want to parkour all over the map, dodge and cover, and shoot enemies with their guns.  Guts and glory types, and it's all good.

 

Some people want to crunch numbers (literally or figuratively), figure out the most optimal or efficient loadout and squad configuration to "solve' the difficulty of a certain map or mission type.

 

The former might find the latter's chosen playstyle as being boring or lazy.

 

The latter might find the former's chosen playstyle obtuse and inefficient.

 

The game allows for both approaches (and anything in between) to be viable as well as it does other takes on gameplay.

 

Issues and disagreements on the current state of the game seem to come from some kind of frustration over people doing things differently and achieving success.

[THND3RZ]

Some people want to parkour all over the map, dodge and cover, and shoot enemies with their guns.  Guts and glory types, and it's all good.

 

Some people want to crunch numbers (literally or figuratively), figure out the most optimal or efficient loadout and squad configuration to "solve' the difficulty of a certain map or mission type.

 

The former might find the latter's chosen playstyle as being boring or lazy.

 

The latter might find the former's chosen playstyle obtuse and inefficient.

 

The game allows for both approaches (and anything in between) to be viable as well as it does other takes on gameplay.

 

Issues and disagreements on the current state of the game seem to come from some kind of frustration over people doing things differently and achieving success.

This game allow both but one is a lot effective to a point where this way overshadow the other.Isn't it best to be able to do both without having one way being a lot better than the other ?

Biggest example is Saryn,i don't play her with miasma spam but i can't deny how easier and dealier it is.My way of gunning ,moving around and shooting bubbles from my venom is fun,yet absolutely not as effective as a miasma spam.

And Saryn is not the only one,i just took the example because i think many people know what 'im talking about.

[DelialFallen]

In late-game (T4 Surv and Def) and even in Derelict and the later Star Map content, no ability in the game, to my knowledge, surpasses the effectiveness of top tier, well-modded weapons so far as killing power is concerned.

 

As far as control abilities go, they perform as they ought and permit adequate CC where and when necessary.

Edited May 21, 2015 by DelialFallen

[Ashnal]

It shouldn't provide a 300% bonus. Nothing else in the game has such an extreme progression curve, yet someone with maxed efficiency can cast 4 times as much as someone with base efficiency. If it calculated efficiency bonuses properly it wouldn't be as much of a problem (although it may still need tweaks).

The interesting thing is that efficiency used to be calculated as a bonus to what your energy was worth. It scaled linearly. The problem is that most players back then saw the mod and expected ti to work the way it does now, but it didn't. Most players did not understand the efficiency math back then, which was actually less powerful. Back then, 30% efficiency meant that every point of energy was worth #0% more. Or essentially that every orb of 25 energy essentially counted as 32.5 energy. Except that isn't how it was displayed. Instead of gaining 32.5 energy per pickup, instead ability costs were reduced accordign to the above. So at 30% efficiency a normally 100 energy cost ability was dropped to ~78 energy cost. People would look at that and gu :Waht? That's only a 12% discount, not 30%!." DE changed it to be a straight easy to understand reduction. Back before Fleeting Expertise or Blind Rage existed, the only mod to affect efficiency was Streamline, thus the math change had a small effect on energy cost, a total of 8 energy saved from old steamline vs. new streamline. They didn't have the hindsight back then though to see that their new math scaled much more favorably (exponentially vs linearly) for ability spam.

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

The interesting thing is that efficiency used to be calculated as a bonus to what your energy was worth. It scaled linearly. The problem is that most players back then saw the mod and expected ti to work the way it does now, but it didn't. Most players did not understand the efficiency math back then, which was actually less powerful. Back then, 30% efficiency meant that every point of energy was worth #0% more. Or essentially that every orb of 25 energy essentially counted as 32.5 energy. Except that isn't how it was displayed. Instead of gaining 32.5 energy per pickup, instead ability costs were reduced accordign to the above. So at 30% efficiency a normally 100 energy cost ability was dropped to ~78 energy cost. People would look at that and gu :Waht? That's only a 12% discount, not 30%!." DE changed it to be a straight easy to understand reduction. Back before Fleeting Expertise or Blind Rage existed, the only mod to affect efficiency was Streamline, thus the math change had a small effect on energy cost, a total of 8 energy saved from old steamline vs. new streamline. They didn't have the hindsight back then though to see that their new math scaled much more favorably (exponentially vs linearly) for ability spam.

That's interesting. I would think they'd update the description before changing the mod that much.

[Ironlixivium]

     Staaahhhhp! Please, just stop. You're breaking the game. Think about all the abilities that suddenly become overpowered because you thought its op when people kill a bunch of level 20s with the press of a button. Invisibility, smoke screen, molecular prime, turbulence, tail wind, hysteria, Blessing, link, rhino stomp, shatter shield, vex armor, bullet magnet and Many more would become spammable without restriction, and the thing is, the thing you want nerfed, radial damage abilities, don't even scale to levels above 50, while EVERY SINGLE ability I just mentioned works much more effectively than radial damage ones at ANY level. 

Edited May 22, 2015 by Ironlixivium

[Kripnex]

So what you are saying is...

"Let's completely screw all builds in existence because I don't like encountering the occasional spammer in low level missions, as well as in missions where they speed up farming (who will continue to exist anyway due to trinity)."

 

If this idea was so golden then DE would've acted on it ages ago, since you are far from being the first to suggest it.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Kripnex

[Archistopheles]

I'd love to see you guys try to balance any current #4 nuke so that it can't spam-destroy mercury, but is still effective on pluto (level 30-40), and still starts to fall off around level 65~

[o_HiTMaN_o]

-1 

 

All the hassle for ? nothing .

 

-1

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

I'd love to see you guys try to balance any current #4 nuke so that it can't spam-destroy mercury, but is still effective on pluto (level 30-40), and still starts to fall off around level 65~

I'd end scaling (in its current form of health and damage).

[S7ORM]

Don't forget this is like Saryn's main mod. It makes Miasma cheaper and stronger since it packs more punch the less duration it has.

Also, what's the point of having an AOE if the area is reduced? Wouldn't that make it just an E?

The point is, you trade AoE range for the ability to use the ability more often.

So, you can do more damage in a smaller area, more times. If you want to hit larger area, you'll have to list lazily to the left and cast it again.

 

It makes more sense as - radius per point of efficiency for AoE.

 

AoE is powerful because it hits large areas.

So its cost should scale based off that.

 

Reduced cost should = reduced range. 

I agree with this thread, and the above quote.

[S7ORM]

I'd love to see you guys try to balance any current #4 nuke so that it can't spam-destroy mercury, but is still effective on pluto (level 30-40), and still starts to fall off around level 65~

Simple: Give it scaling damage in the form as such: Enemy level x #. Enemy health scales faster than their level by a square:

 

        Current Health = Base Health × ( 1 + ( Current Level − Base Level )² × 0.015 )

 

so while you still do more damage against higher level enemies, it's not enough to kill them.

But why would we want to scale to enemies at level 1-5? So I'd rather see:

 

        Base Power Number** + (Enemy Level x Damage Scaling Modifier)

 

** Base Power Number is affected by power strength and other modifiers, such as armor for some defensive skills

 

 

There would have to be some sort of check for enemy level integrated into the game's mechanics for powers to work like that though.

Edited May 23, 2015 by S7ORM

[Archistopheles]

So now the question becomes, why haven't we seen this scaling in game yet?

[Reaver_X]

lol no, don't ruin fleeting.

[BlueThingy]

I think changing the mod as the OP suggests would just end up making a different set up powers the best.  Anything duration based will get nuts quick.

 

I think a more fundamental change is in order.

 

 

...I don't know what that would BE but the base mechanics of the game need tweaking for the long-term health and viability of the game.

[vindcare]

-1

FE already has a downside, changing the "-" stat will heavily impact duration builds.
There's not stoping you people, next time nerf Flow also since on most frames having maxed flow equals FE in terms of how many abilities you can use from caped energy.


The current efficiency cap is 75%, maybe lower that numbe instead? Then again, flow would be used instead.