A Max Streamline And Fleeting Expertise Should Increase Power Efficiency By 190%. So Why Capped It At 175%?

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

It is implied that 100% Power Efficiency = Original cost. The player, even in the tutorial, will start off with using energy to use an ability, meaning that it implies the value 100% is not "for free". Then, once they obtain a Cracked Streamline for free (from the first quest), then they will know that the 100% is equivalent to "Original cost.". 

 

It is similar to Split Chamber altering the damage stats of a rifle: The values shown are not double, and Split Chamber can only go to 90% maximum, implying that what it shows is taking that percentage into account as well. 

 

Region can provide a lot of of entertainment with a lot of things. 

 

How does the Arsenal UI make zero sense in any way? Higher Power Efficiency = Higher cost savings (since it is labelled: Power Efficiency, it would make sense already.), and with the implication that 100% Power Efficiency = Original cost from the start of the game itself, just by playing the game and using the Arsenal to start equipping mods. 

 

And yes, even that can slip through quite a lot of players' minds, so seemingly complex to them. Probably would be just better to tell them to calculate Efficiency as: Original_Cost x (2 - Power_Efficiency_Value_In_UI / 100%) and call it a day.

It's clearly wrong because, according to the UI, 200% efficiency = 0 cost. 300% efficiency would be negative cost.

[Renegade343]

Won't get any less wrong no matter how often you repeat it. And get your formula straight, its lacking consistency but features completely unnecessary complexity. Also, wording. It's just wrong like this.

It is not like the whole mod system goes under a same formula as well (just look at all the reload mods, for instance.), or how Fire Rate mods then affect burst weapons. 

 

And that is not complex at all. That is pretty simple in of itself.

 

It's clearly wrong because, according to the UI, 200% efficiency = 0 cost. 300% efficiency would be negative cost.

It would make sense for this game, for a I have pointed out for quite some time now: In this game, ±x% Efficiency (i.e.: The description on Streamline etc.) = ±x% cost savings. Yes, I do understand that in other systems, ±x% Efficiency does not necessarily equal to ±x% cost savings, but in this game, it is. 

[Dunkingmachine]

It is not like the whole mod system goes under a same formula as well (just look at all the reload mods, for instance.), or how Fire Rate mods then affect burst weapons. 

 

And that is not complex at all. That is pretty simple in of itself.

Funny you mention reload speed mods, as they truly increase the efficiency of reloading, in complete contrast to energy cost mods which DO NOT. And i hope you don't mean the formula from your last post with this, as that one is pretty much nonsense that doesn't calculate anything.

 

 

 

It would make sense for this game, for a I have pointed out for quite some time now: In this game, ±x% Efficiency (i.e.: The description on Streamline etc.) = ±x% cost savings. Yes, I do understand that in other systems, ±x% Efficiency does not necessarily equal to ±x% cost savings, but in this game, it is. 

... which is wrong wording and needs to be changed, should have been changed back when they changed the stat from efficiency to cost reduction, because as of now, it doesn't do what it states. Efficiency has a fixed meaning, you can't just reassign a new one to it.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Dunkingmachine

[Renegade343]

Funny you mention reload speed mods, as they truly increase the efficiency of reloading, in complete contrast to energy cost mods which DO NOT.

The point is (which you missed): 

 

The mod system as a whole uses different formulae, not just a one-size-fits-all formula, because that would mean some mods end up calculating things wrong, and then some of them will produce garbage results (see all the ±An_absolute_value mods, such as Sinister Reach.). 

 

... which is wrong wording and needs to be changed, should have been changed back when they changed the stat from efficiency to cost reduction, because as of now, it doesn't do what it states. Efficiency has a fixed meaning, you can't just reassign a new one to it.

It makes sense in the context of the game, so I do not see much of a problem with it. 

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this part. 

[Blazer-X]

Right, ignoring the pile of comments regarding efficiency vs cost reduction and math up there.... (because let's be honest, arguing about a game mechanic is kinda pointless when we all know how it CURRENTLY works)

 

The cap isn't all good or bad. It does balance to some extent by setting 75% cost reduction (or 25% cost, if you will) as a current meta the build around, instead of letting everyone and everything spam their abilities for 10% cost.

 

Primed Streamline will change the game to some extent. The main two gains out of Primed Streamline is that it increases duration for frames that either need or could benefit from increased duration (pretty much everything but Nyx and certain builds of Chroma, Saryn, and Pilferind Hydroid) and that it allows either a higher rank Blind Rage or allow you to run a max Strength build at 60% cost reduction. This is a ripple effect that affects almost every frame (again, with some small exceptions) and it will create a new meta for people who have access to the mod and the resources to max it out. As for me, like another user earlier, I have a Legendary Core with Primed Streamline's name written on it.

[Azamagon]

The point is (which you missed): 

 

The mod system as a whole uses different formulae, not just a one-size-fits-all formula, because that would mean some mods end up calculating things wrong, and then some of them will produce garbage results (see all the ±An_absolute_value mods, such as Sinister Reach.). 

 

It makes sense in the context of the game, so I do not see much of a problem with it. 

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this part. 

What YOU fail to understand: Every mod in this game, that uses percentile values related with speed/rate/time, uses EXACTLY the same formulas, the right ones they should be using... except for Power Efficiency.

 

Why is that true? Well, the reload speed mods works exactly the same as fire rate does, actually. The only difference is just how they are worded:

A weapon with a reloadTIME of 2 seconds, has a reloadSPEED of 0,5 reloads/second. Reloadspeed is just the inverse wording of reloadtime.

If the reloadspeed mod gives a 30% reloadspeed bonus on that weapon, it means the reloadSPEED goes from 0,5 to (0,5 * 1,3) = 0,65 reloads/second

So now it reloads 0,65 times/second, which is ~1,54 reloadTIME. Exactly the same as 2 / 1,3. Same formula, just inversed.

 

The only difference between fire rate and reloadtime is that they use inverse terminology. Fire rate (or Firespeed) could also be listed as FireTIME, which would then display how long it took between each shot to be fired, similar to how reloadTIMES are currently displayed. But that's unnecessary, since Firerate and Reloadtime are easier to grasp for most people.

 

People generally don't understand the difference, because they don't think/know about the units involved. Speed (or rate) and time are not the same words at all, even if they can be greatly related to one another. That's why people complain about how the reloadspeed mods work (since you use division), but not the fire rate mods (since you use multiplication). Which is really funny, because they work exactly the same, but people don't think/know about the units involved, the reason why you have to inverse them. Ignorant people, that's the problem! They should've payed more attention in school...

 

Power efficiency, however, is definitely using the wrong words. For people that knows the differences, its current description is completely wrong.

75% efficiency bonus should be 75% efficiency bonus. But it is 75% COST REDUCTION, which, as WiiConquered pointed out, is actually a 300% efficiency bonus. Very, very, very big difference...

 

EDIT: To use the examples from above: It's like if the firerate was affected by a formula as if it was fireTIME. The formula used for power efficiency is, sort of, inversed. Hence its immense power, and also why the terminology + the arsenal-display is completely wrong.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Azamagon

[Renegade343]

What YOU fail to understand: Every mod in this game, that uses percentile values related with speed/rate/time, uses EXACTLY the same formulas, the right ones they should be using... except for Power Efficiency.

 

Why is that true? Well, the reload speed mods works exactly the same as fire rate does, actually. The only difference is just how they are worded:

A weapon with a reloadTIME of 2 seconds, has a reloadSPEED of 0,5 reloads/second. Reloadspeed is just the inverse wording of reloadtime.

If the reloadspeed mod gives a 30% reloadspeed bonus on that weapon, it means the reloadSPEED goes from 0,5 to (0,5 * 1,3) = 0,65 reloads/second

So now it reloads 0,65 times/second, which is ~1,54 reloadTIME. Exactly the same as 2 / 1,3. Same formula, just inversed.

 

The only difference between fire rate and reloadtime is that they use inverse terminology. Fire rate (or Firespeed) could also be listed as FireTIME, which would then display how long it took between each shot to be fired, similar to how reloadTIMES are currently displayed. But that's unnecessary, since Firerate and Reloadtime are easier to grasp for most people.

 

People generally don't understand the difference, because they don't think/know about the units involved. Speed (or rate) and time are not the same words at all, even if they can be greatly related to one another. That's why people complain about how the reloadspeed mods work, but not the fire rate mods. Which is funny, because they work exactly the same, but people don't think/know about the units involved, the reason you have to inverse them. Ignorant people, that's the problem! They should've payed more attention in school...

 

Power efficiency, however, is definitely using the wrong words. For people that knows the differences, its current description is completely wrong.

75% efficiency bonus should be 75% efficiency bonus. But it is 75% COST REDUCTION, which, as WiiConquered pointed out, is actually a 300% efficiency bonus. Very, very, very big difference...

First off, you also neglected that Status Duration+ mods, which also is related with time and uses percentage values, is additive than the formula used for the reload mods.

Second, I have said this many times already: In the context of this game, Efficiency (i.e.: The mod card description) can be interpreted as cost reduction (more memorable than spending time teaching the correct thing, which would cause more confusion to the average player.). I do not care for this particular instance whether or not it is wrong, because when teaching a new player, I am not going to spend more time to tell them that the values are wrong if they do not ask. If they question, then I will tell them the correct information, but if they do not ask, then I am not going to go further, because that player is most likely not wanting to dig deeper with gaining knowledge.

Yes, I am stating that I am not going to bother with other people if they do not give me something back, or I am not obligated to teach them.

[ReizoRyuu]

Fuse fleeting to 50 and streamline to 25, done, problem solved.

[pavlo555]

Less spam ... We don't need 10cost 4 buttons ... So having both maxed allow you to have Blind rage at -15% w/o drawback

[Azamagon]

1) First off, you also neglected that Status Duration+ mods, which also is related with time and uses percentage values, is additive than the formula used for the reload mods.

2) Second, I have said this many times already: In the context of this game, Efficiency (i.e.: The mod card description) can be interpreted as cost reduction (more memorable than spending time teaching the correct thing, which would cause more confusion to the average player.). I do not care for this particular instance whether or not it is wrong, because when teaching a new player, I am not going to spend more time to tell them that the values are wrong if they do not ask. If they question, then I will tell them the correct information, but if they do not ask, then I am not going to go further, because that player is most likely not wanting to dig deeper with gaining knowledge.

3) Yes, I am stating that I am not going to bother with other people if they do not give me something back, or I am not obligated to teach them.

1) *facepalm* It works just like any simple no-need-to-be-inversed formula, since it is not using inversed units! It's an additive multiplication, just like Firerate is, because it states that it does just that.... It's a very, very, VERY simple thing you know...

 

And did you seriously NOT read at all what I said about the importance of the difference between reloadspeed and reloadtime was? Seriously?! The answer is JUST UP THERE! Oo *head explodes*

 

EDIT: I'll put it very simply now:

* Fire rate has +Fire rate mods - Thus uses additive multiplication, because the function and the mod have the same units used.

* Status duration has +Status duration mods - Thus uses additive multiplication, because the function and the mod have the same units used.

* ReloadTIME has +ReloadSPEED mods - Thus uses the inverse formula, division, because the function and the mod have INVERSE UNITS USED. If the basic function, reloadTIME was stated as reloadSPEED instead (as in, instead of displaying 2 seconds/reload, it displayed 0,5 reloads/second), it would have the same unit both in base function AND in the mods for it, then it would use additive multiplication too. Hence, it is technically the same ANYWAY!

 

Get it now?

 

2) Which, if they don't wanna change the formula (no matter how overpowered it is), could be so easily fixed and cause less confusion if they just changed power efficiency's description to say X% COST REDUCTION, rather than +X% EFFICIENCY. That, and if it showed up correctly in the arsenal (with 75% cost reduction, it should say 25% ability cost, not 175% power efficiency (which is so wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt).

 

And no, cost reduction is a very different term from efficiency, even if they can do similar things in the end. It's very important, because it implies very different formulas. Accept that you are wrong!

 

3) Honestly, I don't care how YOU interact with people in this game, what you do is up to you, with whatever consequences that might bring. But the GAME ITSELF has to state the right terminologies in it. It could spare, you and me both, a lot of time if it did.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Azamagon

[Tyreuzs]

because of:

 

enough explanation.

[zoboso]

I'd like the efficiency cap increased to 80% (like channeling) so that max efficiency powers make you spend a whole number instead of whatever it is now.

[Renegade343]

1) *facepalm* It works just like any simple no-need-to-be-inversed formula, since it is not using inversed units! It's an additive multiplication, just like Firerate is, because it states that it does just that.... It's a very, very, VERY simple thing you know...

 

And did you seriously NOT read at all what I said about the importance of the difference between reloadspeed and reloadtime was? Seriously?! The answer is JUST UP THERE! Oo *head explodes*

 

EDIT: I'll put it very simply now:

* Fire rate has +Fire rate mods - Thus uses additive multiplication, because the function and the mod have the same units used.

* Status duration has +Status duration mods - Thus uses additive multiplication, because the function and the mod have the same units used.

* ReloadTIME has +ReloadSPEED mods - Thus uses the inverse formula, division, because the function and the mod have INVERSE UNITS USED. If the basic function, reloadTIME was stated as reloadSPEED instead (as in, instead of displaying 2 seconds/reload, it displayed 0,5 reloads/second), it would have the same unit both in base function AND in the mods for it, then it would use additive multiplication too. Hence, it is technically the same ANYWAY!

 

Get it now?

 

2) Which, if they don't wanna change the formula (no matter how overpowered it is), could be so easily fixed and cause less confusion if they just changed power efficiency's description to say X% COST REDUCTION, rather than +X% EFFICIENCY. That, and if it showed up correctly in the arsenal (with 75% cost reduction, it should say 25% ability cost, not 175% power efficiency (which is so wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt).

 

And no, cost reduction is a very different term from efficiency, even if they can do similar things in the end. It's very important, because it implies very different formulas. Accept that you are wrong!

 

3) Honestly, I don't care how YOU interact with people in this game, what you do is up to you, with whatever consequences that might bring. But the GAME ITSELF has to state the right terminologies in it. It could spare, you and me both, a lot of time if it did.

First off, they are technically not the same. The reason is that you cannot use the same formula with its shown values in the mod card description (and talking about the mod card description only as of now, because converting the values to fit them all into either equation is a redundant step.). Better to say that they are separate to the laymen to not confuse them.

Second, until they decide to change the description to whatever, I will still be referring Efficiency (as on the mod card) as cost reduction in this game, just so that newer players can grasp the knowledge more quickly.

Third, I am not sure how long did it take you, but it took just around a minute to understand what the numbers show. So, for that one, speak for yourself.

In short, I am using all the values shown and how they work, and keeping it as simple for newer players to know how the system works. It might not fit with your interpretation, but I am still using it until there are changes.

[GAME_PRO24X]

Its been bugging me for some time now. I just don't like the fact that we get a capped power efficiency but we still suffer the full penalty of -60% duration from Fleeting Expertise. If you're going to keep the cap at least fix Fleeting Expertise so we don't get a major duration lost (maybe +45% Efficiency -45% Duration).

well hres a tip ive used for a long time, have your fleeting near maxed (one off the top) and same goes for stream line Fleeting will have 50% and streamline will have 25% effecitly giving you 75% effeciency, deccreaseing that corrupted mod and freeing up extra points for modding.

 

but if you have lokis arecane essence helm you can set your fellting to rank 2 and have your stream line at max also giving you a good effeciencely and much less penatly to duration but yea i do agree the penalty seems too great .

[Azamagon]

First off, they are technically not the same. The reason is that you cannot use the same formula with its shown values in the mod card description (and talking about the mod card description only as of now, because converting the values to fit them all into either equation is a redundant step.). Better to say that they are separate to the laymen to not confuse them.

Second, until they decide to change the description to whatever, I will still be referring Efficiency (as on the mod card) as cost reduction in this game, just so that newer players can grasp the knowledge more quickly.

Third, I am not sure how long did it take you, but it took just around a minute to understand what the numbers show. So, for that one, speak for yourself.

In short, I am using all the values shown and how they work, and keeping it as simple for newer players to know how the system works. It might not fit with your interpretation, but I am still using it until there are changes.

1) They ARE technically the same, just inversed. You don't seem to understand the significance of what I mean with that, so I'll stop discussing this point.

 

2) You go ahead and keep calling it that, helping the newbies so they understand. I mean, I help them too, that's not the problem here. The problem is that the mod- and arsenal-descriptions are actually wrong. If it said "power cost reduction" on the modcards and "power cost" on the left side of the arsenal, the amount of people asking for help would be kept to an absolute minimal. It would be more straightforward and actually be using the right terminology too.

I am in no way saying that what you are doing (helping newbies understand) is the wrong thing, I am only saying that the in game terms are wrong and you shouldn't say that they are completely interchangeable words. You should be saying to the newbies that the DESCRIPTIONS are wrong. That's my point here.

 

3) I had zero problems understanding it (math has always been one of my stronger points). I was referring to the fact that it would spare us time in the meaning that we wouldn't have to explain it to so many people. Sorry for not being clear about that :)

[Renegade343]

1) They ARE technically the same, just inversed. You don't seem to understand the significance of what I mean with that, so I'll stop discussing this point.

And as I pointed out: 

 

I am using the values directly to calculate, not convert values first to fit them all into one formula. A formula and its inverse can be said to be two formulae, because they require different values to calculate the same thing (and as I said before, converting them is redundant). Also, it would be better to just point out that they are two separate formulae for ease of use, rather than make most people confused about the whole thing. 

 

And the word you should be using is not "inverse", but "reciprocal". "Inverse" is generally used for matrix calculations, or functions. 

 

2) You go ahead and keep calling it that, helping the newbies so they understand. I mean, I help them too, that's not the problem here. The problem is that the mod- and arsenal-descriptions are actually wrong. If it said "power cost reduction" on the modcards and "power cost" on the left side of the arsenal, the amount of people asking for help would be kept to an absolute minimal. It would be more straightforward and actually be using the right terminology too.

I am in no way saying that what you are doing (helping newbies understand) is the wrong thing, I am only saying that the in game terms are wrong and you shouldn't say that they are completely interchangeable words. You should be saying to the newbies that the DESCRIPTIONS are wrong. That's my point here.

You do not throw a novel's worth of knowledge to someone that is new to a skill/profession, because not only will he/she not be able to understand almost all of it (after all, he/she is new, and would require time to slowly digest the knowledge, and throwing a novel's worth of knowledge right at the start to them is not going to do that), he/she may also be turned off by that action, and not want to learn it anymore.

 

Similarly, throwing a load of information to new players right off the bat can and will most likely turn them off from the game as well. You tell them that for this game, Efficiency on the mod card is equal to cost reduction (which is a easy thing to grasp, as the description is visual, and it can be shown visually as well.). Then, once they grasp that knowledge well enough, they can either just use it as it is, or find out better answers for themselves, or whatever.

 

The point is: You ease them in first before starting to introduce the bulk of knowledge in the game, rather than chucking the whole book at them and expect them to understand its contents without fail (i.e.: Chucking the whole deal about Efficiency, wording, and whatnot to them right at the start, because that is a good way to get them turned off from the game.). 

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

And as I pointed out:

I am using the values directly to calculate, not convert values first to fit them all into one formula. A formula and its inverse can be said to be two formulae, because they require different values to calculate the same thing (and as I said before, converting them is redundant). Also, it would be better to just point out that they are two separate formulae for ease of use, rather than make most people confused about the whole thing.

And the word you should be using is not "inverse", but "reciprocal". "Inverse" is generally used for matrix calculations, or functions.

You do not throw a novel's worth of knowledge to someone that is new to a skill/profession, because not only will he/she not be able to understand almost all of it (after all, he/she is new, and would require time to slowly digest the knowledge, and throwing a novel's worth of knowledge right at the start to them is not going to do that), he/she may also be turned off by that action, and not want to learn it anymore.

Similarly, throwing a load of information to new players right off the bat can and will most likely turn them off from the game as well. You tell them that for this game, Efficiency on the mod card is equal to cost reduction (which is a easy thing to grasp, as the description is visual, and it can be shown visually as well.). Then, once they grasp that knowledge well enough, they can either just use it as it is, or find out better answers for themselves, or whatever.

The point is: You ease them in first before starting to introduce the bulk of knowledge in the game, rather than chucking the whole book at them and expect them to understand its contents without fail (i.e.: Chucking the whole deal about Efficiency, wording, and whatnot to them right at the start, because that is a good way to get them turned off from the game.).

But how does this make anything easier for new players? They see efficiency on the card and may incorrectly assume the bonus is too small for them. Were it cost reduction, however, anyone could understand how enormous that bonus is.

This feeds directly into this discussion because many people say "we need a higher cap, 75% is a tiny bonus for this game!" because they're looking at the numbers. But the numbers lie to them.

Edited May 30, 2015 by (PS4)WiiConquered

[Renegade343]

But how does this make anything easier for new players? They see efficiency on the card and may incorrectly assume the bonus is too small for them. Were it cost reduction, however, anyone could understand how enormous that bonus is.

They can also easily get things turned upside-down when you tell them how Efficiency works, then turn around and say that, "Oh, by the way, it is wrong and all that.". 

 

You get them on the ropes quickly with just stating that Efficiency is equivalent to cost reduction in this game, and then maybe explain in further detail if they ask for more. Trying to explain everything to the newer players will end up not going very far as well (and yes, this is in the context of now.). 

[Dunkingmachine]

I've honestly never seen someone this stubborn and resistant to logic. But hey, almost 14k posts gotta come from somewhere.

[Renegade343]

I've honestly never seen someone this stubborn and resistant to logic. But hey, almost 14k posts gotta come from somewhere.

Nor have I seen someone not actually trying to use the resources available to explain things to other people as quickly as possible, then go over the details later. You are probably the first. 

Edited May 30, 2015 by Renegade343

[Onisa]

I've honestly never seen someone this stubborn and resistant to logic. But hey, almost 14k posts gotta come from somewhere.

I once got into an extended conversation with them over whether or not everything can be your 'favorite'.

 

It was as fruitful as discussing the correct spelling of color/colour.

[Dubious.Wisp]

Some people take this too seriously. Especially not something as complex as WF.

 

OT: Fleeting should be ranked to 40%. Anything more is just dumb.

[Renegade343]

It was as fruitful as discussing the correct spelling of color/colour.

Answer: 

 

Choose one or the other, but preferably, the world should just decide on one spelling, and dump the other away, just so that English can be a bit more streamlined (same with whoever decided that it would be fun to make commas equate to decimal points, and then half the world adopts that. Just choose either using full stops to represent decimal points, or commas to represent decimal points, so that each side trying to read the other side's mathematical papers would not be confused.). 

[(PSN)GoggleHead1]

Pretty much this in a nutshell. Quite frankly I think Primed Streamline was there to troll the dataminers. The way energy efficiency ingame works is already more than it needs to be, hence why we've ended up with the 4 to win dilemma, and I think DE know that introducing primed streamline or raising the power efficiency cap would be terrible for the game.

Indeed, lol imagine ultimate costing only 10 energy. It's already spam heavy at 25. O.o 10 though?

[Azamagon]

Renegade343: I've reported you for trolling. No one can honestly be THAT counter-logical and mean it. In case you are actually just illogical by nature, I'll try to explain AGAIN (why do I even bother? T_T)

And as I pointed out: 

 

I am using the values directly to calculate, not convert values first to fit them all into one formula. A formula and its inverse can be said to be two formulae, because they require different values to calculate the same thing (and as I said before, converting them is redundant). Also, it would be better to just point out that they are two separate formulae for ease of use, rather than make most people confused about the whole thing. 

 

And the word you should be using is not "inverse", but "reciprocal". "Inverse" is generally used for matrix calculations, or functions. 

 

You do not throw a novel's worth of knowledge to someone that is new to a skill/profession, because not only will he/she not be able to understand almost all of it (after all, he/she is new, and would require time to slowly digest the knowledge, and throwing a novel's worth of knowledge right at the start to them is not going to do that), he/she may also be turned off by that action, and not want to learn it anymore.

 

Similarly, throwing a load of information to new players right off the bat can and will most likely turn them off from the game as well. You tell them that for this game, Efficiency on the mod card is equal to cost reduction (which is a easy thing to grasp, as the description is visual, and it can be shown visually as well.). Then, once they grasp that knowledge well enough, they can either just use it as it is, or find out better answers for themselves, or whatever.

 

The point is: You ease them in first before starting to introduce the bulk of knowledge in the game, rather than chucking the whole book at them and expect them to understand its contents without fail (i.e.: Chucking the whole deal about Efficiency, wording, and whatnot to them right at the start, because that is a good way to get them turned off from the game.). 

Still a facepalm to you dude. It's not about the need to convert them. The whole point is that they ARE convertable to use the same math, meaning they all follow the same chain of logic, in contrast to Power Efficiency, the main formula-deviator in the entire game!

 

Besides, you are not using the values directly as they are with Power Efficiency anyway, that's just plain false. At the efficiency cap, the Arsenal states 175% efficiency. Now, to explain to a newbie you have to say: "Nah, the fact that the stat went UP is just done wrong, It should actually have gone DOWN to say 25% power cost. Because those 75%, those that matter, is just a simple reduction of energy cost, don't look at what the game is telling you. Everything else in this game is right in terminology and everything, but this single stat is completely bonkers!"

... and still call that "using the numbers that are there"? The numbers in the game are misleading, end of story!

 

It doesn't matter how much you like to explain the details later for the newbies, it is something that could be prevented in the first place. Can't you just accept that you are completely wrong and illogical here?

 

And... did I just read that? This has NOTHING to do with "chucking the whole book" at people, it's about changing ONE vague terminology to a far easier-to-comprehend one!

So, first of all: How is changing a word into 2 far more clear words gonna make the game more or less overwhelming? It makes no difference whatsoever in "overwhelming" factor!

Second: How would things be MORE overwhelming when everything is clear as day? It's overwhelming and annoying when the math is NOT clear, that is what can make people shy away from things, not when they are done CORRECTLY! What parallell universe are you from, really?

 

And you know what? I'd gladly have the "the whole book" chucked at me. I don't think ANY game has been 100% clear with math, mechanics or numbers, ever. And that IRRITATES me! The closest game I've encountered to being as clear as possible is Dota 2 (it even has an IN GAME LIBRARY and TUTORIALS / TRAINING!), and it's a breath of fresh air with such transparency and information! I love to read up a lot before playing, 'cuz I truly believe in the saying "knowledge is power"!

So that statement, that chucking the whole book is overwhelming, is as wrong as it gets for me!

 

They can also easily get things turned upside-down when you tell them how Efficiency works, then turn around and say that, "Oh, by the way, it is wrong and all that.". 

 

You get them on the ropes quickly with just stating that Efficiency is equivalent to cost reduction in this game, and then maybe explain in further detail if they ask for more. Trying to explain everything to the newer players will end up not going very far as well (and yes, this is in the context of now.). 

WHAT? Hahahahaha! Are you even seeing what you are writing?! Efficiency is a far more vague word than Cost Reduction, how can you just not get that into your head? Cost Reduction would be so clear and would require NO explanation, in contrast to the current situation!

 

If the game said "Cost Reduction" and the Arsenal showed it correctly in the first place... what would there be to explain? Tell me. I'm listening why you are so anti-logic and anti-ease-of-use. I'm very eager to hear a GOOD reason for this.

 

Nor have I seen someone not actually trying to use the resources available to explain things to other people as quickly as possible, then go over the details later. You are probably the first. 

But, once again, the starting point of this is just so stupid, honestly! If it was clear from the BEGINNING, they can understand it right away, no need to "go over the details later", it would be clear as daylight right away from the start! Oo

You are probably the first person I've heard that does NOT want clarity in things so they are comprehendable from the start, but rather keep things wrong and hard to comprehend for newbies and/or people that has difficulties with mathematics other than the reason "because then we can explain it later". It's so counterlogical you are making my head hurt! T_T

 

Answer: 

 

Choose one or the other, but preferably, the world should just decide on one spelling, and dump the other away, just so that English can be a bit more streamlined (same with whoever decided that it would be fun to make commas equate to decimal points, and then half the world adopts that. Just choose either using full stops to represent decimal points, or commas to represent decimal points, so that each side trying to read the other side's mathematical papers would not be confused.). 

^ Proof that Renegade343 has to be a troll. If you are not, I feel VERY sorry for you

Was it that hard to understand that it was not meant to be answered?!

 

EDIT: Plus, the response to that question is also exactly the opposite in nature of how you are debatting with us of "make it one way or the other" in regards to efficiency versus cost reduction. Not only are you illogical, you are also hypocritical!

Edited May 30, 2015 by Azamagon