(PSN)WiiConquered Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Regardless of the wording, 90% cost reduction (1000%[!] efficiency) is way, way too high. 75% is too much as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azamagon Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Regardless of the wording, 90% cost reduction (1000%[!] efficiency) is way, way too high. 75% is too much as is. Of course lol. The best thing that could happen in this game was if they actually started using EFFICIENCY for the formula again, instead of COST REDUCTION. It would do so many things: 1) Efficiency wouldn't be such a deceivingly good stat to stack. 75% efficiency would mean 75% more casts, not 300% more. 2) No need for a cap, max Fleeting Expertise and Streamline both, you will not feel regret / being cheated that you didn't know that efficiency (which it is not in the first place, the game is lieing to you) had a cap. 3) The arsenal and modcards would then use the right terminology and numbers. No more in-game lies! 4) Fleeting Expertise could even see a BUFF if that happens, having the penalty reduced to 30% at max rank sounds fair. Edited May 30, 2015 by Azamagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)WiiConquered Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Of course lol. The best thing that could happen in this game was if they actually started using EFFICIENCY for the formula again, instead of COST REDUCTION. It would do so many things: 1) Efficiency wouldn't be such a deceivingly good stat to stack. 75% efficiency would mean 75% more casts, not 300% more. 2) No need for a cap, max Fleeting Expertise and Streamline both, you will not feel regret / being cheated that you didn't know that efficiency (which it is not in the first place, the game is lieing to you) had a cap. 3) The arsenal and modcards would then use the right terminology and numbers. No more in-game lies! 4) Fleeting Expertise could even see a BUFF if that happens, having the penalty reduced to 30% at max rank sounds fair. It would also mean the mod's bonus scales linearly and not exponentially, which would make under clocking fleeting expertise more alluring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azamagon Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 It would also mean the mod's bonus scales linearly and not exponentially, which would make under clocking fleeting expertise more alluring. That's right, that too! :) Another good thing about changing it: Primed Streamline would actually not be overpowered either, I'd actually accept its existence easily, if this was changed. See? Healthy balance is healthy :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyWaffles Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 If they could convert the additional 25 efficiency overflow into something else (ie. an additional straight add to the energy pool or cast speed which would somewhat make some sense in terms of efficiency using a skill) it'd be more than worth it to use both mods maxed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) 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! And I am pointing out that it would be better for newer players to treat them as two separate formulae rather than one, not whether or not they are one formula, so that they can get right into modding and getting the values correct. EDIT: And burst-fire weapons with fire rate mods need another formula to get the correct values, so there is that as well. 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! Or, I just simply explain, "±x% Efficiency = ±x% Cost reduction for this game.". No need for more words, and still uses the numbers that are there (mod card values). I do not care whether or not the wording is wrong. If it changes, fine, I will just use the changed wording. But since the wording is not changed, I am still going to say to newer players just that. 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? I am talking about right now. Explaining to newer players on Efficiency being wrongly worded or whatnot will just get them turned around by quite a bit, on top of everything else that they have to learn in the game. That is why I am saying, "±x% Efficiency = ±x% Cost reduction for this game." so that when they mod, they can instantly do some calculations. 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. As I already stated: I am not caring about the wording (and my posts have never cared about it, so I am not sure why you think I care). Right now (as with most of my posts), all I am going to point out is that for this game, ±x% Efficiency = ±x% cost reduction, based on the mod card description only. If it changes, I change along with it. Nothing more, nothing less. 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 See reply above, or just to repeat again: I do not care about the wording. If they ask, all I am telling them is, "See the mod card for Streamline? See the +x% Efficiency? Just quickly remember that ±y% Efficiency = ±y% cost reduction for this game.". That is quick enough for them to learn while still playing the game, and more memorable than trying to explain the whole deal right at the start. If they want to know more, then I can explain further, but if not, why bother now? 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 Yet again, I do not care for wording (I do not know how much more I should be pointing this out). I neither want nor not want the wording to be changed (i.e.: Apathetic about the change). If it changes, I will adapt to it. If it does not, then I will be using the old explanation. The point I have been making is that based on now, and in this game, it can be correct to say that ±x% Efficiency = ±x% cost reduction. ^ 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?! Is it also difficult for you to see that I had never cared for whether the wording is correct, but just that I use what is shown to teach new players? 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! I never said I was not a hypocrite. Also, you spelled "debating" wrong. An extra "t", to be exact. Besides, as I said: I do not care about the wording for Efficiency in this game, because at the end of the day, it is not going to cause an actual war or cause glitches (i.e.: If it stays the same, I just teach with the old method. If it changes, then I just modify the teaching to encompass the new change.), but having different notations for representing decimal points can cause problems with reading and coding (and that has far more impact than wording in a game.). That is a matter of priority, so I care about different notations for decimal points rather than caring for wording in the game. Edited May 31, 2015 by Renegade343 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xikiri Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I'm glad you indirectly brought this to my attention. I need a new Fleeting Expertise now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now