Cz: can you make LLTSs not drop in 1/2, but max at 8%?

[Docmax]

.

[________________Alli]

LOL, you actually PAID someone for a 6% LLTS when you could have missioned or blitzed for the same thing in a VE for free ??

are you stoned?

[___________Nightwish]

He got some nice crack i think.
Please dont nerf my scope. I paid so much for it. this will be unfair if the crit chance was nerfed from 8% down to 7.99

[Docmax]

.

[Docmax]

.

[Docmax]

.

[Centurion3]

Originally posted by Beaker
Wouldn't it be nice if all the 8% LLTS's were still 8% after the nerf?

I don't see why they have to make the 8%'s be 4%.

Because they where overpowered? Wasnt that the whole thought behind nerfing them?

[Docmax]

.

[Docmax]

.

[Sparkyd]

Basically, you're saying: "I spent money on a 6% scope. Other spent money on higher than 8% scopes. They should get more penalized than I should...."....

I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think that would be too fair in my opinion. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

[Docmax]

.

[Sparkyd]

Imo, making a 8% scope into a 4% scope would not NEARLY be reducing the value of the scope as opposed to a 15% being reduced to an 8%.

If they are going to leave 8% and lower without being nerfed, then they have to add some incredible modifiers to the LLTS being nerfed....

[Docmax]

.

[Sparkyd]

Heh. I think we're having a communication error here. My mistake, I shall try to make my post a little more clear.

I'm saying that if they DO nerf the 15% scope down to a 8% scope, then they had better add some VERY nice modifers to it to make up for the nerf.

If they do that, then I see no problem of leaving 8% and lower scopes the way they are....as long as the 8% and lower don't get the modifiers as well. I mean, if they're not being nerfed, then I don't see any reason to add modifiers to those as well.

Now, lets say Funcom decides to nerf the 15% down to 8% and they don't bother to add any GREAT modifiers to it. What distinguishes the nerfed 15% LLTS and an 8% LLTS that isn't nerfed? Almost nothing! That's completely UNFAIR. So, in that scenerio, the 8% should be reduced as well.

[eaze]

Originally posted by garzini
LOL, you actually PAID someone for a 6% LLTS when you could have missioned or blitzed for the same thing in a VE for free ??

are you stoned?

They are definitly not the same. The reason why also low QL LLTS are very much in demand are because of their ability to be equipped on a lower level twink than a VE is.

[________InfamousDuck]

This is a pretty "unique" thing to say about the 8% llts scope...Think about this, the people who have ql 200 ellts's will have 8% scopes and the ql 100 scope will also be 8%? Lol who wants all that extra init penalty? That screws the higher ql scopes and uberizes the ql 100ish ones.

[luxferro]

Then there would be no benift to having a higher QL scope.. plus, the higher ql scope would have more negative initiatives. unless at the point where the scopes hit 8%, then init penanly become less and less.. then there would be a benifit to having a higher QL one.. (something people saved, earned, or paid millions for)...

[Docmax]

.

[Czarina]

Interesting... You do realize that if they did something like that it would essentially destroy the value of all 15% scopes and make 8% scopes the most valuable... which doesn't seem to make sense in that they want to preserve the value of the 15% scope... no one would pay more for an 8% scope that dropped your inits by double another 8% scope... on the flipside you kill the value of a 15% scope if you double the number of the by making all 8-15% scopes equal...

[Centurion3]

the point of this was to remove the overpowered effect of the ELLTS scopes, not turn them into another overpowered effect... my guess is they'll just buy them back for alot of cash...