Weapon requirements based on profession

[Gatester]

Of those, only 2 are MP specific. 4 of them can't even be perked at TL5, which is what your huge argument is all about. And minus the OP pistol perks, they all have a recharge greater than a minute. Should we post the DD perks that soldiers or enfs get? Cause trust me, they don't even compare.

So funny him complaning about Tigress and then listing Pistol perks (that a whole bunch of profs can use)...

No MP uses those perks, sorry Gate, just shows how little you know about MPs...
Starfall is the only viable one from there, and is it purely PvM because of the long chain.

And the failure goes to everyone who reads one post at a time, congratulations

He laughed when I said MP's had good DD perks, and I posted perks with good DD. I wasn't referring to any particular situation with bows or anything, I was simply proving Esssch wrong. Should I post a DD pistol setup used at 220 to validate a response to player's ignorance as well?

If you want to post enforcer and soldier perks though go right ahead. Try limiting it to 40 SL perks and the 10 profession alien perks if you can though as I did with my own post. Enforcers should do pretty good, but I can already laugh at you as you post the soldier one and try to compare it to the Starfall perkline alone.

I think the point that Gate and others are trying to make is regardless of how effective certain profs are with weaponry the fact is that they are meeting supposedly "difficult" endgame weapon requirements on TL5 toons. That's kind of an epic slap in the face to other professions that have to wait midway into the shadowlevels or later to reach the requirements for their endgame weaponry. And for all the talk about how crappy support profs are with weapon skills I still see a vast majority of crats and engis as well as a decent number of docs running around with 2251/1651/1126 req peh'wer/troa'ler.

So bump for upping the requirements on all db weaponry to 2101/1651/1101 or better.

You hit part of it square on the head, but I'm aiming for something quite a bit larger and broader. MP's have a great weapon, pets, and nukes...but their nukes are terrible at tl7 and are ok at tl5. MP's are not a weapon based profession, they should not get a high end weapon like the Tigress with low reqs. They SHOULD be given nukes and pets that can match the weapon and perk effectiveness of enforcers or soldiers, not weapons that an MP cannot use anywhere near as well they would other tools.

Can you guys see what the point of this thread is now? It is not just about weapons, it is about profession strengths being ignored or wrongly adjusted. Rather than giving everyone weapons to try to make them equal to each other, they should have their own unique ways of being equal. Tacking on the low skill requirements is just the slap in the face by FC that proved they were too lazy to do what professions needed. Give the weapon profs great weapons, give the casting profs nanos, and stop making the opposite the situation for balancing profession effectiveness.

[Xootch]

i do think gatester is making a pretty valid point here. support profs get easier-to-equip weapons if measured in firepower and - and - that i find even worse, got so much ar they can use them almost as good as a fighting class. but hey. almost everyone has a support prof at this point so no one will admit that. surprise surprise.

[Esssch]

And the failure goes to everyone who reads one post at a time, congratulations

He laughed when I said MP's had good DD perks, and I posted perks with good DD. I wasn't referring to any particular situation with bows or anything, I was simply proving Esssch wrong. Should I post a DD pistol setup used at 220 to validate a response to player's ignorance as well?

If you want to post enforcer and soldier perks though go right ahead. Try limiting it to 40 SL perks and the 10 profession alien perks if you can though as I did with my own post. Enforcers should do pretty good, but I can already laugh at you as you post the soldier one and try to compare it to the Starfall perkline alone.

Soldiers' perks are more than made up for with an 11s FA. Starfall has a 90 second recharge for the last final perk (which RARELY hits for more than 10k). To put that in perspective, soldiers can do 120,000 damage before our perk recharges, and we STILL won't hit the 15k mark. Which you would know if you weren't just doing napkin math.

I laughed that you said MPs had good DD perks, because you act like that's supposed to make up for the fact that we're still the bottom of the barrel when it comes to PvP and being picked for PvM. We can do DD....if we push it. I'm currently at around 180k DPM in Mitaar Hero as 2hb creation user. I can probably push that up to maybe 210-220k DPM if I switch to pistols. And that's as high as I'll go. My character will not get higher than that in current game mechanics. So "wahhh MPs get a lower req on their weapon than i do" and yet you can still OD us if you don't q /afk. You can still destroy us in pvp. You're still wanted more for teams than we are. The only difference is that now, you want to make it so that we don't even get a weapon? Go around and ask how many MPs can get 2251 in bow. Not many, I'll tell you that right now. We get **** AR, and even our AR template is the worst, and yet you're complaining that Tigress only requires 1800 bow?

The last part of your post seems to just be your way of backpedaling. Especially when you say stuff like "MPs have a great weapon, pets, and nukes...but their nukes are terrible" well are our nukes great or terrible? Make up your mind. Have you ever played an MP? Our pets are terrible at TL7 too. I agree, we should have better nukes at the cost to our weapon skills, much like what was just released in the crat documentation. As it is, you're just bitching in a roundabout way, about something that you don't even have all of the info for yet.

[XenonDe]

Can you guys see what the point of this thread is now? It is not just about weapons, it is about profession strengths being ignored or wrongly adjusted. Rather than giving everyone weapons to try to make them equal to each other, they should have their own unique ways of being equal. Tacking on the low skill requirements is just the slap in the face by FC that proved they were too lazy to do what professions needed. Give the weapon profs great weapons, give the casting profs nanos, and stop making the opposite the situation for balancing profession effectiveness.

Yes. Many of the weapons have been bandaid fixes. No one was too happy about getting weapons instead of fixes. The nano changes documents may be a chance to move away from the weapon focus. However the game heavily revolves around weapons now. Just look at what new stuff has been added to the game the past year or so. Some buffs, and nice content. And weapons. More Weapons and upgrades to those Weapons. No player went like "uuuhh those new armors make me so excited sooo many new possibilities!".. No. It always went like "lol, new weapon. I can OD shades now roflolol!".
Currently "support" profs rely on their weapons just as much as "combat" profs. The most desired support in this game is adding a lot of damage to the team. Until that changes and support profs have the nanos/toolset upgrades, you cannot take the weapons from them.

i do think gatester is making a pretty valid point here. support profs get easier-to-equip weapons if measured in firepower and - and - that i find even worse, got so much ar they can use them almost as good as a fighting class. but hey. almost everyone has a support prof at this point so no one will admit that. surprise surprise.

So much AR? I disagree about that. Even though they can reach good AR it will not increase their pvm damage the same degree as combat profs thanks to the multipliers. Hell, you'll only see a very little damage increase between 1800 and 2700 AR for support profs.
And as for pvp the AR of support profs is lolworthy. You won't hit evade enfos. Heck even my doc will evade a lot of perks from support profs. Engis, soldiers, docs and non evade twinked enfs are prolly the only classes you can reliably perk. That's not what I'd call using their weapons almost as good as combat profs and it's the reason every support prof uses AS weapons and AS weapon are broken in their own way. The AR vs Def rating doesn't even matter.

[Gatester]

The last part of your post seems to just be your way of backpedaling. Especially when you say stuff like "MPs have a great weapon, pets, and nukes...but their nukes are terrible" well are our nukes great or terrible? Make up your mind. Have you ever played an MP? Our pets are terrible at TL7 too. I agree, we should have better nukes at the cost to our weapon skills, much like what was just released in the crat documentation. As it is, you're just bitching in a roundabout way, about something that you don't even have all of the info for yet.

The main issue here is that FC is adjusting stats for the professions rather than making balanced stats based on performance and level. Weapon based professions should have an easier time equipping their weapons, nano based professions should have an easier time casting their nanos. Currently, it is almost the complete opposite.

I said this on the 11th, 6 days ago. I pretty much straight up said my issue here, but after a couple days it expanded even further and I pushed the thread to do that. What you are even saying about the crat documentation now I did not even see until after I made my final post, which you can somewhat verify with the fact that I did not post in the FWM until after I posted.

It also means I was right the whole time, crats should have been given better pets and nukes NOT pistols. It is the same for any profession, their strengths should be strengthened not their weaknesses balanced. To match those nukes, weapon professions may also need better weapons that also require sacrifices in their capabilities. It only makes sense.


To make my comment easier to understand, since you somehow have it confused:
MP's are a nuke and pet profession that currently has, [A great weapon], [pets], [nukes]...but [the nukes are terrible compared to current nukes from docs, crats, NTs]. Get it now? Good, do not feel bad that I get you guys fired up to prove a point, cause even now:

I agree, we should have better nukes at the cost to our weapon skills

Afterall, how chould I have known when I made this thread a weak ago that the Crats were getting this sort of nuke and pet support? I could have guessed on the pets but the nukes, never.

Also, I have rolled 6 MPs, 2 froobs, a 60 twink, a 74 twink, the 75 twink I have now and the tl7 I do not have in my signature because, well its not exactly exceptional so why add it? So I have 3 MP's atm, I tried tl5 MP as I leveled, and it is also my strongest pvp profession currently, so yes, I know MPs pretty well and that I want pets, nukes, and not a freaking bow.

[Esssch]

I said this on the 11th, 6 days ago. I pretty much straight up said my issue here, but after a couple days it expanded even further and I pushed the thread to do that. What you are even saying about the crat documentation now I did not even see until after I made my final post, which you can somewhat verify with the fact that I did not post in the FWM until after I posted.

It also means I was right the whole time, crats should have been given better pets and nukes NOT pistols. It is the same for any profession, their strengths should be strengthened not their weaknesses balanced. To match those nukes, weapon professions may also need better weapons that also require sacrifices in their capabilities. It only makes sense.


To make my comment easier to understand, since you somehow have it confused:
MP's are a nuke and pet profession that currently has, [A great weapon], [pets], [nukes]...but [the nukes are terrible compared to current nukes from docs, crats, NTs]. Get it now? Good, do not feel bad that I get you guys fired up to prove a point, cause even now:



Afterall, how chould I have known when I made this thread a weak ago that the Crats were getting this sort of nuke and pet support? I could have guessed on the pets but the nukes, never.

Also, I have rolled 6 MPs, 2 froobs, a 60 twink, a 74 twink, the 75 twink I have now and the tl7 I do not have in my signature because, well its not exactly exceptional so why add it? So I have 3 MP's atm, I tried tl5 MP as I leveled, and it is also my strongest pvp profession currently, so yes, I know MPs pretty well and that I want pets, nukes, and not a freaking bow.

You changed your position from "these guys shouldnt get good weapons" to "these guys should get other things to buff up their skills rather than weapons". Originally, all you brought up were the weapons. Maybe your position was the same throughout the entire thread. Do we know that? Last I checked, I'm not a mind reader. Crats have had pistols since 2001. Your opinion is that now they shouldn't have pistols at all? Whats your reasoning behind that, because they're a support profession? Support professions can shoot guns too. That was the entire premise behind AO, you could make your character do anything you wanted.

Weapon professions need BETTER weapons? Are you kidding me? Have you seen the Xan weapons lately? Or how about Shen sticks, which still keep up with the Xan weapons? Weapon professions don't need better weapons, they just need to lose OP stuff like Combined Commandos. Toning down of all Combined would be perfect imo.

I "somehow" had your statement confused because you used an adjective, then a list. That usually implies that the adjective applies to the entire list. There's no mystery behind it. Now that I know what you mean, yes, we have pets and nukes, and a semi-good weapon. I mean in anyone else's hands, it might be considered OP, but in ours, well...I think that you argued against that yourself, with the fact that you're not even proud enough of having a TL7 MP to put it in your signature. That kind of says a lot about the MP prof, when people are too embarrassed to even admit they have one at TL7. You know MPs well at lower levels. You might know a bit about them at higher levels, but not as much as you know about lower levels. Trust me when I say that you can complain all you want about Tigress, but you can't complain about Tigress-wielding MPs.

[crattey]

Most of any disagreement with Gatester, shown even stronger in his somewhat 'special' keeper compadre Knuckle, revolve around the fact that;

- they sometimes to mix up their numbers
- they often tend to state their opinions as fact
- if someone disagrees, they'll counter that by inflating their original statement, thus entirely loosing all touch with reality

That pretty much gurantees that any discussion ends up in an utterly derailed thread. But a fun one, where MPs have the most amazing combat abilities, fixers are immortal and engineers are wicked evadesmonkeys.

[Xootch]

lol. i disagree. gatester really proved to be a patient debater with solid arguments. i can't believe how opportunistic and egocentric people are - even in these forums.

@xenonde: and you feel that is a bad thing? - but to be honest: crats and traders can perk def enfs easy. but i'm not gonna argue with you. i think you know.

[erozc]

MPs have the most amazing combat abilities, fixers are immortal and engineers are wicked evadesmonkeys.

This would make a fun out-of-context quote, by the way. Sig material?

[XenonDe]

@xenonde: and you feel that is a bad thing? - but to be honest: crats and traders can perk def enfs easy. but i'm not gonna argue with you. i think you know.

Well those two are the two of the support profs that actually get good AR. And hell yes do I believe they should be able to perk enfs. Being unable to use their perks is what drives most "support" professions on the AS bandwagon. But you're right - it makes no sense to argue about that with the upcoming nano changes and hopefully the move away from AS cookie cutter.

[crattey]

lol. i disagree. gatester really proved to be a patient debater with solid arguments. i can't believe how opportunistic and egocentric people are - even in these forums.

@xenonde: and you feel that is a bad thing? - but to be honest: crats and traders can perk def enfs easy. but i'm not gonna argue with you. i think you know.

I'm somewhat amused by this comment. Crats with high AR are bad, but enforcers with high def are ok?

[Gatester]

lol. i disagree. gatester really proved to be a patient debater with solid arguments. i can't believe how opportunistic and egocentric people are - even in these forums.

That's because I made this thread with the intent of, well pissing people off. There are some really HUGE holes in my statements, some of them people got but a lot were missed, which honestly suprised me. I tried to point that out several days ago but people must not have realized it by taking such a solid stance.

What it comes down to is that FC can give everyone good anything, these band-aid fixes just to make everyone happy. When people saw the new dread pistols or the Tigress they were extatic. In actual use, they became an ok pvm choice and generally failed in pvp.

One of the points I cannot believe people did not point out is that a doctor or crat is far better off with an ithaca in pvp than those pistols. Shield of Zset is a much safer choice than Tigress, and even with the offensive strength of a Tigress if it was used at tl5, a Shield+Parry stick would be generally better. A tl7's weapon is surpassed in use by a weapon introduced 7 or 8 years ago?

By making my argument sound as though players were getting something better, everyone of them was practically able to argue that they were not. If FC sees this, which they might have or might have realized months ago, they would see that giving weapons to professions that need nanos, pets, nukes to function was the wrong choice. Weapons should be in the hands of professions that rely on them over other options to function.

My other option, which I actually worked on in Microsoft Word began as a thread which stated something closer to what I said a week ago. Does anyone think a thread that everyone "bumps" would have brought as much out as this thread did?

[crattey]

I think it rather more likely that few people actually bother providing detailed arguements to counter your claims, considering you'll start the same or a similar rant again tomorrow.