MP perks proposed attack/def rating checks

[-Klod-]

After some examinations, only at MP oriented perk action (Ken Si) I saw some tiny irregularities, at least when it comes to attack and defense checks. All other professions have appropriate checks for their actions.

Instead of MC (or all nano skills combined) check, there is Attack Modifier one, which is wrong (after all, Ancient Knowledge buffs nano skills, not weapon skills).

Also, defense check is evade close/dodge ranged (50:50), which is in one word, weird. It should, of course, check Nano Resistance for defense.

Just wanted to point that one out.

[Essessceeaych]

Speaking of which, Ken Si is often the only perk I can land on high-evade bosses like Eel or Beast.

[-Klod-]

Speaking of which, Ken Si is often the only perk I can land on high-evade bosses like Eel or Beast.

I wonder why.

[Essessceeaych]

I don't follow your reasoning. Because it goes by MC? Eh. Because it checks evade clsc? It's still a high evade boss.

[sultryvoltron]

After some examinations, only at MP oriented perk action (Ken Si) I saw some tiny irregularities, at least when it comes to attack and defense checks. All other professions have appropriate checks for their actions.

Instead of MC (or all nano skills combined) check, there is Attack Modifier one, which is wrong (after all, Ancient Knowledge buffs nano skills, not weapon skills).

Also, defense check is evade close/dodge ranged (50:50), which is in one word, weird. It should, of course, check Nano Resistance for defense.

Just wanted to point that one out.

Perhaps the new revamp of creation weapons will use pure MC (or TS or whatever) as the attack skill, thus giving this perk a nifty check of MC+AAO instead of pure MC.

An evade/dodge mix will actually be plenty landable on semi-evade professions, although perhaps it should be an NR check (although this rules out the possibility of getting +AAO).

[Dancingrage]

Evade/dodge should still add AAD, and thusly will be problematic unlike most of our other perks.

[Xtremtech]

Most important is that there's consistency.

At the very least, Profession specific perks should, where possible, all use the same basic template, so that accessing your profession perks doesn't force you to go along split-builds (i.e. trying to max both MC and Attack Modifier).

X

[-Klod-]

Most important is that there's consistency.

At the very least, Profession specific perks should, where possible, all use the same basic template, so that accessing your profession perks doesn't force you to go along split-builds (i.e. trying to max both MC and Attack Modifier).

X

Listen to this man. He's smart.

[sultryvoltron]

Most important is that there's consistency.

At the very least, Profession specific perks should, where possible, all use the same basic template, so that accessing your profession perks doesn't force you to go along split-builds (i.e. trying to max both MC and Attack Modifier).

X

But what if your MC was part of your attack modifier?

Unless you have negative AAO, seems like you would come out better with a weapon that used 100% MC as the attack skill. This gives you all your MC + your AAO. Remember kids, addition is closed under positive integers.

Also, let's not rule out the possibility of a creation weapon akin to the engi pistol. I bet engis would kill for Attack Modifier on their perks to take advantage of their 25% ME bonus.

[-Klod-]

Well, I can bet we would do better with MC check or any nano skill check in general, since our nano skill AR based weapons don't use 100% nano skill + 20% weapon skill checks, but 80 + 20.

[Xtremtech]

Aye... as long as attack skills are split between MC and something else, then the same applies; you end up with split builds. Split builds mean trade-offs and compromise - and we shouldn't have to compromise in this way on profession-specific perks.... they should be designed for us.

After all, if you're an Enf you wouldn't expect Blunt Mastery or Edge Mastery attack skills to include nanoskills...

X

[Kinkstaah]

You wouldn't - But on such a perk reliant class as enforcers you do have to sacrifice certain things if you want to maximize in AR.

Having your perk attack skills be your nanoskills is an advantage in and of itself. While 1HE perks may not require nanoskills, you still realistically need nanoskills so you can actually use as much 1he as you can.

So, in a way, having to account for nanoskills, evades, etc does 'nerf' your AR. Having it all on one thing (as per nanoskills on perk attacks for a nano class) means you get it all in one spot, which is nice.

[-Klod-]

You wouldn't - But on such a perk reliant class as enforcers you do have to sacrifice certain things if you want to maximize in AR.

Guess who else is gonna be perk reliant class after the rebalance.

Yeah, MPs.

[Towerblock]

So, were taking a step back to current shade status, is this what I am hearing?
You guys do realize how badly it turned out for them, right?

As for enforcers being entirely perk reliant, id say no more than martial artists in their current (read here: nerfiest) form. AR and regular hits still do mean a bit to us.

[Kinkstaah]

Try regular hitting someone to death with 600 pt regulars vs 4000 pt crits. I'd say the difference between MA and Enf perk reliance is night and the surface of the sun itself.

[-Klod-]

When you talk about 600 pts regular hits, I take it you mean MA Vs MP.

[Kinkstaah]

I mean enf vs anything
compared to MA vs anything

This is in regards to someone claiming MA are as perk reliant as enfs, esp considering a MA has 11s AS, SA, and Dimach (if used for dmg)

My earlier comment re def checks on perks was stating it would be a bit silly to have high nanoskills help

a) Land damage
b) improve defence (via landing debuffs)
c) obviously cast nanos

Its not like enfs defence and ability to cast nano based defence depend entirely on their attack rating, so saying everything MP related should be nanoskills based isnt entirely true. all classes should ideally make sacrifices and choose between the various attributes. an attack rating MP should technically be a viable choice imo.

[Kinkstaah]

lol I must be doin something wrong because enf regular hits me for like 1.1k+ damage where'd you get 600 from? Boy, you really know how to downplay your prof.

MAs have AS SA and dimach... awww damn I didn't realise FC removed dimach and SA from enf's toolset QQ (btw the AS isn't 11s unless you have on a scope)

dual weild, 1hb/1he, vs competent pvper with rrfe.. 620 or so, ish. Not downplaying anything, thats just how it is.

MA's do have AS, SA, and Dimach. SA and Dimach will do better than enf with them, esp dimach. AS vs simply not having AS is a huge advantage, whether it's 11s, or 14 or w/e. You have it, it exists. I miss perks on a fixer and do 0 dmg. AS is better than that. It makes you less perk reliant.

Still, the main part about being perk reliant is that a MA does a monsterously higher amount of damage via regular hits and crits than enfs do. Enforcers are perk reliant. MA cannot even be close to regarded to being reliant on perks to the same degree, when they have their reg hits, AS, Dimach, and SA at their disposal.

Can't argue otherwise

[Kinkstaah]

But this thread is about MP's - With a nerfed shield, and a nerfed AS, you'd think their offensive power should be replaced with something.

That something really should be nukes, mind you. Perks should be temp abilities for offence (i.e, self buffs) or defence, etc. But they should at least be useful. As an agent I know too well the pain of useless perks.

[-Klod-]

MP perks should check nano based skills. Everything else is highly illogical and/or imbalanced for a profession that is officially MASTER OF NANO SKILLS. Period.