View Full Version : Eye Implants for Monks and HC Tanks
enigma_b17
18-04-04, 01:19
I think its about time that Monks and HC tanks got some useful Eye implant things, ie an eye which gives psi power or apu/ppu, and one that gives hc :D
Clownst0pper
18-04-04, 01:21
TIme and time again people want this..
OH Wait, thats like people wanting parashock removed.
We dont get either ;)
enigma_b17
18-04-04, 01:25
well to be fair not every1 wants it removed :P, but this isnt about parashock, this is about gettin these imps for all those hc tanks and monkages out there :D
Me Votes for the Imps.
and Votes for Let the Para Ingame.
tomparadox
18-04-04, 03:55
i agree, they need psi eyes and all that crap...
a bit offtopic but i cant help this
and Votes for Let the Para Ingame.
para sucks kthx...
/offtopic
SamuraiPizzaCat
18-04-04, 05:13
The tanks dont need HC Eye implants if they wanna cap RoF they gotta wear
PA and take the speed hit as a tradeoff.
For monkeys I think if the eyes only gave Psi Use(maybe INT) it would be ok.
Monk eyes should give PSI (to allow them to use PA4 on the same terms as spies and tanks) and either PSU or PPW to slightly boost psi pool.
Heavyporker
18-04-04, 05:22
Noo.. no.. I've said it before...
PSI Eyes should only give +PSI and +MST...
MST would be fine. The end result would be the same : free up some PSI points to spend on PPW thereby boosting mana.
Heavyporker
18-04-04, 05:44
exactly, and besides... there are way too many imps giving psi use and ppw...
I'd like to see a *little* variety in the PSI chips, you know?
exactly, and besides... there are way too many imps giving psi use and ppw...
I'd like to see a *little* variety in the PSI chips, you know?
It's a good point, MST is sadly lacking due to it being added in late.
Heavyporker
18-04-04, 06:02
yeah... actually, I'd go so far as to suggest that the PSI Controller imps (the non-exp) give at least 2x more psi use than they do now and some MST, because right now.. frankly... WHO THE FUCK uses them?!
YESH! give us a damn eye and a damn backbone. thats the psi then.
give tanks a damn heavy combat eye ffs.
make hc eye give -100 melee combat and make the melee give a 100- hc.
make psi or apu/ppu eye with huge apu/ppu minuses, a backbone that gives +5 psi, -3 str and -15 force or something.
Nash_Brigham
18-04-04, 11:26
Yes, Monks need a useful eye implant, and pprobably a back imp to. So far, I got ones thtt really I don't need, I just have em in, more for shits and giggles, smart cyber eye, and I forget what my backbone is. As for the parashock, it is the ******, and needs to be removed. A spell for the totally skilless.
A set of eyes that give only weaponlore would be nice.
paolo escobar
18-04-04, 11:53
how about an eye for tanks that gives a big weapon lore bonus but removes pistol and rifle combat so that shady pe's and spy's cant use em.
U know u want that aiming :).
Oh and its gotta give better weapon lore than the shitty melee combat eye 3.
<edit>
lol, ffs next time i will read all the replys b4 posting.
its like there is an echo in here.....here..........here................here
Heavy Combat Eye
BioTech Heavy-Combateye 1 H-C+4 WEP+3 P-C-3 R-C-3
BioTech Heavy-Combateye 2 H-C+4 WEP+8 P-C-5 R-C-5
BioTech Heavy-Combateye 3 H-C+4 WEP+13 P-C-10 R-C-10
No I havn't made any mistakes or type-o's with those numbers.
In my opinion that should be exactly it.
(I play as a Tank)
The tanks dont need HC Eye implants if they wanna cap RoF they gotta wear
PA and take the speed hit as a tradeoff.
For monkeys I think if the eyes only gave Psi Use(maybe INT) it would be ok.
rofleskates.....
Do you play a tank? or are you in a big clan where you get an all artifact cs herc etc?
Most tank dont and are not, so dont have uber 10 slot artifact cs's so cant cap rof on the cs even with pa.
So....not many tanks actually cap there weapons, i know i didn't and i've played a tank since retail hit.
So, to say monks can have it when monks can cap their main spells, whereas a tank cannot, is pretty unfair?
tanks need a HC eye, same as monks need a PSI spine and a PSI eye too.
Dont give me BS about tank being overpowered.
Peace out homefries.
The tanks dont need HC Eye implants if they wanna cap RoF they gotta wear
PA and take the speed hit as a tradeoff.
Thats bullshit and you know it.
I don't see PC and RC eyes being removed so Spies and PE's
have to do the same things.
Same with MC
robdekoning
18-04-04, 14:46
rofleskates.....
Do you play a tank? or are you in a big clan where you get an all artifact cs herc etc?
Most tank dont and are not, so dont have uber 10 slot artifact cs's so cant cap rof on the cs even with pa.
So....not many tanks actually cap there weapons, i know i didn't and i've played a tank since retail hit.
So, to say monks can have it when monks can cap their main spells, whereas a tank cannot, is pretty unfair?
tanks need a HC eye, same as monks need a PSI spine and a PSI eye too.
Dont give me BS about tank being overpowered.
Peace out homefries.
Dont give me that bullshit about tanks needing a hc eye. You dont have to cap RoF on a CS. It's not that your a much shittier tank if u have 10 freq less and besides I think it's pretty fair that you can only cap RoF with a herc. Let em work for it.
What im saying
IF YOU DON'T CAP ROF ON A CS...GET YOURSELF A HERC
IF YOU CAN'T GET A HERC...STOP COMPLAINING DAMNIT
I don't think it would fair at all to cap only damage on a TL-105 weapon, if you don't have an hercules chip, which incidentally is not obtainable atm.
This game is about sacrifices, and with the correct sacrifices every class should be able to cap their weapons.
I wondered when the tanks would start whining about RoF on their best weapon. The same arguments as always still apply - nor can anyone else and you have tons of decent imps already.
YESH! give us a damn eye and a damn backbone. thats the psi then.
give tanks a damn heavy combat eye ffs.
make hc eye give -100 melee combat and make the melee give a 100- hc.
make psi or apu/ppu eye with huge apu/ppu minuses, a backbone that gives +5 psi, -3 str and -15 force or something.
That would be overkil in every possible way.
A set of eyes that give only weaponlore would be nice.
You mean like the Cyber-eyes?
You mean like the Cyber-eyes?
Yes, put normal cybereye 2,3,4 ingame. Not the smart-ones that lower HC.
Melee Combateyes are useful for hybrid tanks, if that helps.
Dont give me that bullshit about tanks needing a hc eye. You dont have to cap RoF on a CS. It's not that your a much shittier tank if u have 10 freq less and besides I think it's pretty fair that you can only cap RoF with a herc. Let em work for it.
What im saying
IF YOU DON'T CAP ROF ON A CS...GET YOURSELF A HERC
IF YOU CAN'T GET A HERC...STOP COMPLAINING DAMNIT
Fine, i won't
Remove all eyes and spines.
See my point?
ROF is the most important thing on a cs, and no i do not have the time or patience nor the will to get a herc coz i do more than fine without one, what im saying is that to say tanks do not need a heavy combat eye is a little dumb, its the only implant a tank lacks.
Yes, put normal cybereye 2,3,4 ingame. Not the smart-ones that lower HC.
Cybereye 2's are ingame. Not seen 3's or 4's though.
Let's see.
It takes over 210 H-C to cap Damage and RoF on an artifact CS (Tl 105). It takes considerably less to cap damage and RoF on, for example, an Executioner (TL113) or a Disruptor (TL115).
The widely available Exp Ballistic Weaponchip 3 is matched for Tanks by the Moveon CPU. For Dex skills you pay 50k max, whereas the equivalent tank imp requires 600k + time to do the epic yourself or costs 1 mil+ to buy.
Distance Weapon CPU and HardenBackbone 3 are roughly equivalent. HBB3 gives mainskill bonus, but takes away from agl whereas DW3 releases T-C points. Also Dex skill users can use Exp Reflex 4 for the same mainskill bonus, plus agl.
Marine = SF.
Herc = SA.
But oh look, no eyes for tanks, whereas Dex based skills have those lovely level 3 eyes with +15 P-C or R-C.
Marine + Moveon + Herc + HBB3 + PA3 + H-C1 booster = +45 H-C, factor in +48 FOR (base < 50 ) gives + 9, total +54.
SF + Exp Ball 3 + SA + Distance Weapon 3 + PE PA3 + P-C eye 3 + P-C booster 1 = +53 P-C, factor in +18 T-C (base between 50 and 75) nets +7 P-C in points, total +60, increasing to +66 with Spy PA3.
Still gonna argue Tanks have better imps?
Putting all STR points into H-C is the classic tank approach and has been since beta. Fact is, you do that and instantly weaken yourself to Liberator, Silent Hunter, Moon Striker, Pain Easer, and Wyatt Earp. It was viable earlier, it's not now. Transport you can just about get by without.
To cap a CS with PA2 on and no herc, is not possible. The best H-C you can get is 206, and that's gimping TRN and FOR. With 200 pierce armor and a little transport, you get 200 H-C, with the PA on, from base 164. When was the last time a Spy or PE needed more than 150 base P-C or R-C to cap damage and RoF on his weapons?
@rob: CS RoF cap is as important as Libby RoF cap. It's just the same as making damage on Judge/RoG and anything above impossible to cap without SA. And MC5 chips should not be required. This is a TL105 weapon we're talking about ffs, there are PEs that can cap Executioner at TL113, 33 DEX above their cap by using drugs, take all the drugs in the world and it doesn't get any easier to cap CS at 5 levels above STR cap.
Yes, put normal cybereye 2,3,4 ingame. Not the smart-ones that lower HC.2s are/were in-game. I had one at the start of retail but Saturn's legendary database integrity means I don't have it now.
3s and 4s never existed AFAIK.
@Oath - I thought you knew better that to say something so dumb. "its the only implant a tank lacks" is exactly right - how many other classes are even close to lacking only one implant?
@Scikar - Show me a FULLY capped Disruptor Spy without a Kami chip....
2s are/were in-game. I had one at the start of retail but Saturn's legendary database integrity means I don't have it now.
3s and 4s never existed AFAIK.
@Oath - I thought you knew better that to say something so dumb. "its the only implant a tank lacks" is exactly right - how many other classes are even close to lacking only one implant?
Only Monks.
Wich is the point of this thread?
the monks are powerful enough as they are. they could do with some resist implant or something
Only Monks.
Wich is the point of this thread?
Monks get no decent bones, eyes or spines and a poor selection of hearts.
Monks get no decent bones, eyes or spines and a poor selection of hearts.
Like i said the only implant a tank lacks is a heavy combat eye.
I never said that monks had everything, but spys and PE's have every imp for every occasion.
Monks need imps i agree, and its far more important than giving tanks a heavy combat eye, however i never said monks should not get imps.
MONKS NEED IMPS TOO DAMMIT k?
<3 Jernau
@Scikar - Show me a FULLY capped Disruptor Spy without a Kami chip....
I bet if you gimped agility you could do it, just like a Tank has to gimp resist force if he wants to cap CS, as well as get a herc...
Like i said the only implant a tank lacks is a heavy combat eye.
I never said that monks had everything, but spys and PE's have every imp for every occasion.
Monks need imps i agree, and its far more important than giving tanks a heavy combat eye, however i never said monks should not get imps.
MONKS NEED IMPS TOO DAMMIT k?
<3 JernauPEs are the only class that can make good use of every implant slot and to be fair they need to.
Tanks get fantastic imps in every slot bar the eye.
Spies lack only decent hearts and maybe bones or spines depending on setup and POV. Then again spies need that because all their weapons are so stupidly high TL.
Monks are fucked. No other way to put it, more than half their slots are only used to reduce the odds or a brain-chip falling out. They can't even use PA4 on every available drug in-game.
IMO only monks need more usable slots.
Why should tanks get to fully cap their best weapon (regardless of TL - this is a balance issue and CS is the best weapon) without gimpage, druggage or effort when no other class can?
<3 Oath :)
@Scikar - Nope, it takes utter gimpage and a kami. Might even need an L3 boost, it's been a while since I saw anyone even try.
I bet you can cap a Redeemer, which is the same TL as a CS. And I already explained that DEX imps are far better than H-C/STR imps. If spies didn't have to gimp themselves and use STR imps for Inq armor they'd have nothing to complain about either.
Also, APUs cap HL with no problems. As I said, even PEs can cap Exec, certainly in damage and get very high RoF, through the use of drugs, but take all the drugs you want and you won't cap CS RoF without a Herc.
Are you seriously telling me you think the Redeemer is a comparable weapon to a CS in any practical way at all whatsoever? Pull the other one.
Spies need more DEX because all their best weapons are such high TL. Even with those extra DEX implants they still have a much harder time capping any decent weapons because increasing the TL also increases ever other aspect of the weapon.
APUs can cap HL because they trade off Mana to do so.
PEs can only cap damage on a Exec and even that takes drugs. Tanks can cap damage on a CS easily without even capping their STR let alone taking drugs.
/edit - spies gimping for inq1 is just another level of pain.
no they dont need it
dex eyes are enough (DEX got tradeskills, PSI and STR not.)
(dont ask me y there is a melee eye :D)
Disruptor takes somewhere around 220 rc, give a point or two, in order to cap RoF which is 222/min. Which is possible only with a kami chip, or fortress + rifle 3...
Monks get no decent bones, eyes or spines and a poor selection of hearts.
Directly? Yes, they don't.
Indirectly? No, they do.
You cannot compare capping TL-115 disruptor with TL-105 CS. Even if both were the best weapons available for each class, the TL is directly related to skill-points needed to cap, so it matters and a lot. A very different issue is the general suckiness of Rifles for their TL, and in my opinion you guys have no right to bash tanks just because your sub-class is broken.
AND the problem is not only the lack of choices in HC implants, but also that very few implants (actually no HC implant) give weapon lore, which is a factor affecting Frequency, Damage, Rate of Fire and Handling.
With the limited INT of tanks, and the lack of weapon lore, Aiming and RoF become a problem even spending all STR points into HC, which if you ask me is retarded, as no class should have a such requirement in main skills.
What people fail to see, is that more diversity in STR implants also gives more versatility to other classes.
PURE HC implants are almost non-existant, being Hercules and Marines rares, and Moveon an epic chip. Even MC implants give you more sets, the Zerk line, Melee Exp Memory, Melee combat eye.
Now just compare the variety of DEX implants, which provide bonuses in the main skill and its subskills. The difference is amazing.
in my opinion you guys have no right to bash tanks just because your sub-class is broken.
I'm not bashing anyone I just find it annoying that everytime monks ask for implants they have needed for years all the tanks start whining about how they can't use one single slot.
With the limited INT of tanks, and the lack of weapon lore, Aiming and RoF become a problem even spending all STR points into HC, which if you ask me is retarded, as no class should have a such requirement in main skills.
No other class has no annoying point sinks on their main skill. Do you want a tank version of T-C, WEP or MST under STR? Can you find another 100-150XP to waste on it?
Hm...
I think the point that was trying to be made, was that H-C itself is the annoying pointsink..
*light shrug* I have no opinion on the topic of H-C itself though.
Even WITH a Herc and a all artifact CS you cannot cap ROF of a CS ..
All - Arti CS
Herc
Marine
Moveon
PP Resistor
PA2
HBB
and ALL Skill points in HC .. still no capped ROF ...
Even WITH a Herc and a all artifact CS you cannot cap ROF of a CS ..
All - Arti CS
Herc
Marine
Moveon
PP Resistor
PA2
HBB
and ALL Skill points in HC .. still no capped ROF ...
Just like the best rifles, pistols and spells, what's your point?
Dude you are bashing tanks with class bitching, my main char is a monk, I have been one of the most active promoting mana increases for monks.
My second most used charater is a rifle spy, and I also have been fervient defender of sets of armors balanced for spies, removing the need to use MOVEON chips, STR boosters and drugs.
Now look at my posts. What I say is thinking outside the box of my most beloved char, thing that doesn't seem common around here.
No other class has no annoying point sinks on their main skill. Do you want a tank version of T-C, WEP or MST under STR? Can you find another 100-150XP to waste on it? Tanks have a version of TC, it is called resist force and it is important against piercing/force weapons.
On equal TLs tanks would have a VERY harder time to cap their weapons than Spies, PEs or Monks. THIS is a fact, and unless you stop bringing other class issues on the subject, you won't be able to see it.
Actually I'm getting pissed at biased attitudes.
This is the STR implants list:
STR Implants
Generic
1.- Strenght Booster
Heavy Combat
2.- Hardenbackbone
Melee Combat
3.- Berserk chip
4.- Melee-experiencememory
5.- Melee combateye
6.- Armenforcements
Rares
7.- Marines
8.- Hercules
9.- Moveon (epic)
And this is the DEX implants list:
DEX Implants
Generic
1.- Motoric
2.- Balanced Advancer
3.- Vehicle Interface
4.- Dexterity Booster
5.- Reflexbooster
6.- Exp. Reflexbooster
Rifle Combat - Pistol Combat - Tech Combat - Weapon Lore
7.- Exp. Balistic Weaponchip
8.- Distance Weapon CPU
9.- Pistol Combateye
10.- Rifle Combateye
11.- Smart Cybereye (not counting normal cybereye)
12,- Targetting Computer
Drone Combat
13.- Mind Control CPU
14.- Exp. Mind Control
15.- Drone Distance Interface
16.- Drone Combateye
Rares
17.- Special Forces
18.- Synaptic Accelerator
19.- Special Riggers Interface
20.- Riggers Dream
MC Implants: 4 non rares - 3 rares (1 epic)
HC Implants: 1 non rare - 3 rares (1 epic)
Total: 9
PC Implants: 10 non rares - 2 rares
RC Implants: 10 non rares - 2 rares
Drone Implants: 4 non rares - 2 rares
Total: 20
I haven't counted VHC interfaces.
Do you know how I reached this conclusion. I am not biased towards my class.
Yes tanks are better balanced than Spies or Monks, but if something is something is broken in my class I don't automatically assume that everyone should have the same problems.
Just like the best rifles, pistols and spells, what's your point?His point is that Rifles and Pistols cap ALL but RoF, whereas on his example tanks do not cap Aiming and RoF, leaving them with only Damage.
Btw, on my spy I cap Damage and Aiming on my TL-115 rifles, TL 113 pistols... what the heck, I cap it also on my PE.
On his tank, with a similar implant distribution, he does not cap a TL-105 weapon.
And you think it is balanced? OK.
Dude you are bashing tanks with class bitchingI'm not class bitching. I'm looking for balance and not favouritism. I cannot see one single reason tanks should have it any easier than they already do.
I play all classes about equally now (only way to avoid boredom after this long) and tanks are not in any way underpowered or in need of more advantages.
FOR is not comparable to TC because spies don't get 110+ TC from their armour.
On equal TLs tanks would have a VERY harder time to cap their weapons than Spies, PEs or Monks. THIS is a fact, and unless you stop bringing other class issues on the subject, you won't be able to see itBut they aren't equal TL so that's irrelevant. You can't balance anything if you only look at one side of the scales. It's exactly this kind of blind stat-whoring that annoys me whenever this topic comes up. Calling others biased on the issue is just rank hipocrisy and I thought better of you tbh.
If tanks want to get maximum use out of every single slot and have no major point-sink in their main skill then we also need : PSI bones, DEX bones, PSI eyes, PSI spines, DEX hearts & PSI hearts.
Do you really believe KK can introduce and balance all that? I don't.
Well that's the difference between you and me, I think that all classes could use more ease in their setups, less cookie cutters, and more diversity. Actually I know you also want this, but in this thread you seem to have adopted a different behaviour tbh.
Now to adress FOR and TC.
Dex classes do not need 110+ TC, just enought to use their weapons/tools... and repeteadely we have suggested for TC something more than being a pointsink, you included.
Tanks on the other hand, need 110+ FOR, in fact 200 to cap this resist, a resist that in these times everyone has pretty much capped or close to it, even monks can achieve 72% force absortion... it points some kind of imbalance when tanks get the same 72% and often do not even cap their TL-105 weapon in the process.
To me at least it says something in favour of tanks.
Regarding TL comparisons, here we are adressing that tanks need 'X' ammount of combat skill points to not even cap their weapons, above what other classes need, and that HC eyes and/or extra weapon lore in their main implants could help to it.
THAT is the reason I compare TLs and not efficiency, and that's why you are not neutral in this post. If I wanted to compare efficiency, I would take into account factors such as Spies needing STR implants to become even in resists with other classes, or Tanks not having stealth tools... and issues as the like.
Why I don't do this. Because it is not the main focus of the thread. Because for the same reason HL and FA are TL 101-103 respectively, do vastly superior damage than Spies' weapons, Monks have better (and essential) roles than the Spy class (such as best offence/defence), and are creating nightmares in this game called Monk-o-cron.
Do you get my points?
I still want mana capped for monks, yes even when I believe in their unbalance, because I consider it fair and a separate issue, that need separate adressing.
Otherwise the classes, for the sake of balance, can become annoying to play and often frustranting in certain aspects.
Well that's the difference between you and me, I think that all classes could use more ease in their setups, less cookie cutters, and more diversity. Actually I know you also want this, but in this thread you seem to have adopted a different behaviour tbh.
It's not about the "cookie-cutter" problem, it's about balance. I would support anything that removes specialisation but only if it was done equally to all classes. You are asking for a boost to tanks that would give them an advantage no other class has. That I will never agree with.
Now to adress FOR and TC.
Dex classes do not need 110+ TC, just enought to use their weapons/tools... and repeteadely we have suggested for TC something more than being a pointsink, you included.
True, I hate point-sinks like T-C but I don't agree tanks have a hard time getting FOR. IIRC my HC Tank has ~135 from armour/imps and 50 natural. My spy has to spend 50 of his DEX on AGL as well as having to waste 70+ on T-C. I don't find 185 FOR leaves me short at all.
Regarding TL comparisons, here we are adressing that tanks need 'X' ammount of combat skill points to not even cap their weapons, above what other classes need, and that HC eyes and/or extra weapon lore in their main implants could help to it.
Tanks need less than spies to cap their weapons. I think you got that upside down. If you want to ignore the efficiency of weapons then you need to get the FL and Disruptor reduced to TL 105 first to even the playing field.
THAT is the reason I compare TLs and not efficiency, and that's why you are not neutral in this post. If I wanted to compare efficiency, I would take into account factors such as Spies needing STR implants to become even in resists with other classes, or Tanks not having stealth tools... and issues as the like....
That's drawing defence into the equation to muddy the waters. We were talking about weapon usage and stats. In those regards the classes are currently fairly balanced (excluding technical issues and a few pending balance corrections within the weapon classes themselves). You are asking to unbalance that by allowing tanks the exclusive ability to cap their best weapon.
Do you get my points?
Yes and I've heard them all before and still say they are one-sided and hence flawed. If you want to add something to one side of the scales you need to add something to the other. Currently spies get more DEX imps because they need so much more to use their weapons as effectively as a tank can use his (in theory at least).
I still want mana capped for monks, yes even when I believe in their unbalance, because I consider it fair and a separate issues, that need separate adressing.
That would balance the monks against a boost to tanks at least. It's not seperate though it's another side of the balancing act.
please add monk eyes/spine
for the eyes, no APU/PPU bonuses, as each eye would have a malus the the opposite stat and therefore useless to me
for the spine, no STR/FOR malus, i have already got -9 or -11 STR and -35 FOR which i think is gimped enough
maybe the lowest psi spine should be usable by spies to make shelter more avalible?
First I hate that crap quoting, because it means that you don't have an argument yourself, and rely on mines to speak. Since you don't leave me more option for my thread to have any sense in reply to yours, I'll have to do the same. Thanks.
It's not about the "cookie-cutter" problem, it's about balance. I would support anything that removes specialisation but only if it was done equally to all classes. You are asking for a boost to tanks that would give them an advantage no other class has. That I will never agree with.
At the very least you could get some backup for your statements.
Tanks already can achieve 227 RoF and 178% Damage on CS, but the costs for this are giving up force resists and transport, and needing a set of RARE implants oppossed to the non-rares required for other classes.
Obviously you can't agree with something that you deny to understand, and fortunately, as the poll shows, in this issue you are the biased minority.
True, I hate point-sinks like T-C but I don't agree tanks have a hard time getting FOR. IIRC my HC Tank has ~135 from armour/imps and 50 natural. My spy has to spend 50 of his DEX on AGL as well as having to waste 70+ on T-C. I don't find 185 FOR leaves me short at all.
Let me put this straight for you, since you seem to not get the difference between TC and FOR.
With the current '89' TC requirement, that already have more to use stealth III, I still get 178% and 267% stats on my Disruptor.
With the current FOR resist that I WOULD need on my Tank to become on par with other classes except monks (I.E. capped), I would get 178% damage and that is all. Aiming and RoF would be uncapped. On top of that, leaving the FOR resists at 72-73% (depending on the implant setup), which is about same as an APU monk (72'6%), Tanks still need MORE rare implants and MORE skill points to get 178% damage 227 RoF... whereas the variety of implants for other classes allows more versatility.
As you see I'm trying to be accurate on the numbers.
Tanks need less than spies to cap their weapons. I think you got that upside down. If you want to ignore the efficiency of weapons then you need to get the FL and Disruptor reduced to TL 105 first to even the playing field.
I had never said that you are the owner of this statement, but I guess that one can learn something new everyday. Please re-read what you have posted.
Tanks need MORE skillpoints than spies to cap their weapons. Ignoring the damage output of weapons, which is not related to the skill points needed to cap it, if we reduced FL and Disruptor to TL 105 you would cap it with the same skill points than a Redeemer.
Would you dare to say otherwise?
That's drawing defence into the equation to muddy the waters. We were talking about weapon usage and stats. In those regards the classes are currently fairly balanced (excluding technical issues and a few pending balance corrections within the weapon classes themselves). You are asking to unbalance that by allowing tanks the exclusive ability to cap their best weapon.
Actually this is twisting my words, and showing a lack of knowledge about Tank PvP and weapon stats. What I am asking is allowing tanks to cap their weapon with more ease, with the same ease as other classes.
This means that tanks would have more implant choices, instead having to get the cookie-cutter setup of Hercules/Marines/Moveon/Hardenbacbone. In top PvP tanks ALREADY have the choice to cap the weapons (not aim), but this leaves tanks without MC-5 chips in the shadow. More implant diversity adds equal fields to tanks that cannot afford certain specific setups.
For this same reason, my Spy can cap Disruptor without an SA chip, because he has the choice to get a different implant.
Yes and I've heard them all before and still say they are one-sided and hence flawed. If you want to add something to one side of the scales you need to add something to the other. Currently spies get more DEX imps because they need so much more to use their weapons as effectively as a tank can use his (in theory at least).
One sided and flawed? You could do it better by looking a mirror. It's not my biased vision what denies fair improvements to other classes, is not also my ignorance what throws empty statements lacking of backup at a person that knows what is talking about. That is the sad reality about yourself.
Currently spies are a broken class, specially Rifle spies, but following your same reasoning... Spies won't get significant differences over PEs because Tanks don't cap weapons easily; Tanks won't cap their weapons without certain specific implants, and will always be cookie cutters, because Monks can't cap mana; Monks will never cap mana because Spies are a broken class.... and so on until the judgement day.
You can be proud, your reasoning leads to nerfs, cookie-cutters and denial.
Well... I think that I have said all what needed to be said about you and your biased reasoning. Don't expect me replying to this topic anymore, as you have proven to be a biased person, lacking of exact arguments.
In fact I tend to discuss with reasonable people, capable to accept corrections to their arguments when these are backupped in reasonable and well-based facts. I haven't lied here. I haven't based my arguments in my lack of exactitude and careless analysis of the classes and its resources... I cannot say the same for you.
My only joy is that the majority does not share your 'one-sided' point of view, at least for this time.
I have proven many times in these forums that I have no problems to apologize to others when I am wrong, recognize my mistakes with humilty, and accept that I can be wrong or not looking from the proper point of view; thing which I have done several times and reinforces my points... I thought you the same, but seems I was mistaken. Today I have seen that you preffer to call me one sided, when in fact I am very neutral in this matter.
I can only say that you have drawn me for the last time into a crap quoting cycle of arguments that repeat themselves over and over. Next time I will write my post in one big paragraph so at least you have to work your reply.
Bye.
First I hate that crap quoting, because it means that you don't have an argument yourself, and rely on mines to speak. Since you don't leave me more option for my thread to have any sense in reply to yours, I'll have to do the same. Thanks.
Eh? Responding to opposing points seems like the basis of debate to me. If we just ignore each other and yell random opinion into the void I don't see how that can help. I agree the posts end up being huge and ugly but how else do you propose formatting them?
At the very least you could get some backup for your statements.
Tanks already can achieve 227 RoF and 178% Damage on CS, but the costs for this are giving up force resists and transport, and needing a set of RARE implants oppossed to the non-rares required for other classes.
This is called character design. If you want all chars to have the same stats then you should be playing Quake not an RPG. I thought you said you didn't like cookie-cutter setups :wtf:
Obviously you can't agree with something that you deny to understand, and fortunately, as the poll shows, in this issue you are the biased minority.
Don't be childish, it's beneath you. Wrt the poll, I didn't even vote as it asks two questions but only allows one response.
Let me put this straight for you, since you seem to not get the difference between TC and FOR.
With the current '89' TC requirement, that already have more to use stealth III, I still get 178% and 267% stats on my Disruptor.
And your RoF? I thought this about stat-whoring on RoF? I really think this whole argument would vanish if KK just adjusted the numbers on the info screen and changed nothing practical.
With the current FOR resist that I WOULD need on my Tank to become on par with other classes except monks (I.E. capped), I would get 178% damage and that is all. Aiming and RoF would be uncapped. On top of that, leaving the FOR resists at 72-73% (depending on the implant setup), which is about same as an APU monk (72'6%), Tanks still need MORE rare implants and MORE skill points to get 178% damage 227 RoF... whereas the variety of implants for other classes allows more versatility.
I am totally at a loss how you can complain about FOR on a tank. According to the skill manager (not ideal but that's your source too I believe) you can cap FOR and PRC with 25 points spent on FOR.
I had never said that you are the owner of this statement, but I guess that one can learn something new everyday. Please re-read what you have posted.
Tanks need MORE skillpoints than spies to cap their weapons. Ignoring the damage output of weapons, which is not related to the skill points needed to cap it, if we reduced FL and Disruptor to TL 105 you would cap it with the same skill points than a Redeemer.
Would you dare to say otherwise?
I'm not totally sure what you are saying here. It is impossible to spend enough points on a spy to cap a disruptor unless you use a kami. In what way can a tank exceed 100% allocation? The reason I mentioned changing TLs is because you were refusing to take all relevant factors into consideration. I hoped removing a few of them will make it simple enough for you.
Actually this is twisting my words, and showing a lack of knowledge about Tank PvP and weapon stats. What I am asking is allowing tanks to cap their weapon with more ease, with the same ease as other classes.
(skipping the nonsense accusations) No, you want them to do something no other class can do and at no penalty as well.
For this same reason, my Spy can cap Disruptor without an SA chip, because he has the choice to get a different implant.
He cannot cap RoF - the same as a CS tank.....
One sided and flawed? You could do it better by looking a mirror. It's not my biased vision what denies fair improvements to other classes, is not also my ignorance what throws empty statements lacking of backup at a person that knows what is talking about. That is the sad reality about yourself.
Personal attacks do nothing to support a flawed argument.
Currently spies are a broken class, specially Rifle spies, but following your same reasoning... Spies won't get significant differences over PEs because Tanks don't cap weapons easily; Tanks won't cap their weapons without certain specific implants, and will always be cookie cutters, because Monks can't cap mana; Monks will never cap mana because Spies are a broken class.... and so on until the judgement day.
Nothing there has any relation to a single thing I've said in this thread or any other. In fact it's exactly the opposite. My point is that if you have a state of balance and then add to one side you have to add to the other. I am and always have been in favour of improvements to all classes. Tanks, Spies and PEs are currently balanced wrt implants and monks need a small boost. Boosting tanks as well to prevent them having a tantrum that someone else got something and they didn't will make matters worse.
You can be proud, your reasoning leads to nerfs, cookie-cutters and denial.
No, poor balance leads to nerfs.
Well... I think that I have said all what needed to be said about you and your biased reasoning. Don't expect me replying to this topic anymore, as you have proven to be a biased person, lacking of exact arguments......
Again, I know you are better than this kind of nonsense. I don't believe you can't grasp the concept of balance or that you lack the intelligence to grasp the very basic concepts up for discussion. It's a shame that you insist on denying the obvious.
Big broken up posts make oath get tired......
Big broken up posts make oath get tired......
:(
**hands oath a pillow**
Hmm been idling this thread.
Jernau in what way would what be overkill. It's better to make extreeme overkill minuses to psi imps atleast to end the endless whineing of the crowd.
The Hybrids wont be able to use them, Is that good or bad I dont know. But if they may and get extra apu/ppu it might overpower them again. or atleast when they eye is out and someone dies from a hybrid he will come here 10 seconds later crying his ass off about it.
Do a hybrid eye aswell if they should be able to use it, with lesser bonus.
If this isnt at all what you ment then hmm :) explain
Ohh and why the hell are there some ppl against the hc eye? :) like why not. givem the fucking 267% aiming on their cs and we will have a happy crowd of tanks. More happy ppl less boring whine to read about. It's not like omg that tank just ********** me bad just cause he caps a cs. A bad tank with a cs will still be just as bad.
The problem with this thread is it asks 2 very different questions, 1) monk imps and 2) tank imps.
On the monk side I think most people agree that they are needed (hence the results above). Hybrids are now thoroughly nerfed and people are starting to realise the damage that this process has done to the whole monk class over the last year or so.
On the tank issue people are more divided as you can see. This issue has been debated many times before and still some tanks refuse to think or listen. IMO the best solution would be to just change the stats on the CS so that it is capped at what is now ~220%. That way the stat-whores can beat off to their F5 window and nothing gets unblanced.
The only other option I see is to give in to the tantrums, give them an eye and then increase the TL of the CS to be more appropriate taking into account it's damage. This would probably also mean adding another line of brain chips too as the CS would end up at at least TL115. That seems a lot of unecessary effort to maintain the status quo when the game desperately needs so many improvements.
At the very least you could get some backup for your statements.
Tanks already can achieve 227 RoF and 178% Damage on CS, but the costs for this are giving up force resists and transport, and needing a set of RARE implants oppossed to the non-rares required for other classes.
This is called character design. If you want all chars to have the same stats then you should be playing Quake not an RPG. I thought you said you didn't like cookie-cutter setups :wtf:
Classic saying how one class has gimpy weapon weapon stats is now known as character design.
Not having a choice of imps with different stats promotes cookie cutter setups as people have no choice but to follow setups with only those imps in.
The fact remains that HC tanks only have 1 series of shop-bought imps, not dropped imps 2 rare imps and 1 epic imp compared to monks 2 rare imps and 4 partial drop/partial shop bought lines and PE/spies 2 rares 2 drops and 1 shop bought series, Im only counting ones that give combat bonuses and not ones that only give a plus to a skill level.
Even though monks are the strongest class why do they feel hard done by?
Yes they cant use PA4 big deal no other class can do it and have a viable setup so very do use it anyway and remember when tank PA4 was something crazy like str 160? I dont remember so much bitching from tanks that couldnt use it as we get from monks who want PA4 so they are even more overpowered.
Snow - ALL classes have those same "gimpy weapon stats".
The fact you get fewer imps is balanced out by how much less contended STR is than DEX or PSI on spies and monks. It's called variety, if all classes were exactly the same bar their skins people would whine about that at least as much.
Monks feel hard done by because their class has taken the brunt of KK's nerf-gun for a year now. They are not overpowered any more and it's time to take a reasoned look at the collateral damage that was done in "fixing" them.
Other classes at least have the option to use PA4 and for PEs there are combat-viable PA4 setups. Monks can't use it despite KK's guidelines on how PA should work now (ie PA4 is for players who are using all the best imps and drugs). Tanks bitched far more when their PA4 was unusable. It was almost as common a topic as Para in now. Remember not everything is about combat and being able to show off and be a bit different from the crowd is something everyone wants to do sometimes.
Its a while since Ive been an apu but I remember having a capped damage HL and aiming isnt a problem and still having a vaguely decent psi pool as a pistol spy i capped everything but rof and all pistols but on my HC tank I only cap damage on my rares, I dont think thats balanced tbh, the nerf hammer hasnt hit pures much the only thing being the ppw reduction on rare imps, hybrids have been whacked into the ground and I agree they should be useable but meh.
Pures arent nerfed they are still almost as strong as they have ever been a good solo apu should have a decent chance of beating a solo HC tank in 1 on 1 combat.
Tbh the only group of monks that need imps are the hybrids but since KK have happily destroyed the class they dont want to introduce anything that may promote thier use and increase their viability.
APUs can cap a HL by sacrificing mana-pool. The degree of that sacrifice is arguable, I admit. IMO it's not crippling in PvP but is in PvM, others may see it differently or not care about PvM or whatever.
PPUs are hit hard now I would say. The reqs on the high end spells are staggering and they do actually need to use them in PvP so again they have to gimp their pool. If they don't have a DS they have to gimp it a lot.
As I said earlier I wouldn't want Monk eyes to make a huge impact on combat stats (ie giving APU/PPU bonuses), just to allow PA and give a little more mana by either freeing up some PSI points or giving a PSU boost.
The aiming cap on a CS is hard to hit but CS aim is great for a plasma weapon. I'd rather see the cyber-eye range expanded as a compromise to the stat-junkies than allow a large combat boost to only one class that I don't think is needed or well-advised. At least that might also provide more setup options for PEs and tradeskill spies as well.
I played a ppu alot and they are in no way nerfed and are overpowered and in reality all they need is an easier way to level int so they dont need god forsaken advanced nerves 3 if they dont have a DS and I used all the high end rare spells, yes my mana pool was a bit small but I have psi boosters for a reason and the rare spells dont have to be cast that often.
Giving more mana has a big effect on combat as they can now cast more spells in quick succession doing more damage.
Apus shouldnt have any problem soloing in PvM other then in cave beginnings no matter what their psi pool is and theres a reason for psi boosters.
A HC eye doesnt have to have masses of extra HC even if they took the minus HC off of the smart cyber eye they would be useful.
In big fights I'm always short of mana on my PPU. I'm not quite fully capped but I do have a DS in. Comparing my stats to a mate who is fully capped (inc. INT) and doesn't have a DS I am a little ahead of him so I don't think it's going to change much when I cap.
As I say APUs are arguable and it depends mostly on how you play.
I just don't see a need for more H-C unless you give all other classes something else as well. Tanks are not underpowered and this would have a serious impact on them as a class.
I just don't see a need for more H-C unless you give all other classes something else as well. Tanks are not underpowered and this would have a serious impact on them as a class.
Tanks arent overpowered either but monks are and your looking for imps for them.
Monks may be always short of mana but I havent met a tank that isnt always short stamina either.
Aziraphale
19-04-04, 14:46
Agree with Jernau, they don't need it.
Tanks arent overpowered either but monks are and your looking for imps for them.
Monks may be always short of mana but I havent met a tank that isnt always short stamina either.I don't agree that monks are overpowered anymore. I do think Para is a serious problem but that's only one spell and not a good reason to punish a whole class, half of whom can't even use it.
Tank stamina is a more justified complaint. Why not ask for a reduced drain from weapons or improved bones or boosters to address that? It's comparable to monk mana so would seem a fair balance if they were to get eyes.
Heavyporker
19-04-04, 18:19
well, actually, there's advanced and experimental hearts for +endurance... the advanced movement controller gives + endurance...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.