Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 139

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Synthesis 30 second delay and damage interruption removes reloading during combat

  1. #106
    Originally Posted by StiTch View Post (Source)
    On the plus side, it's been detrimental to premium reloads. I'd call this a win. Now I'd be eager to hear the results from the testers...
    Beta's actually closed StiTch, we're just all going to have to test it when it goes Live...!

    (Oh, and good point about the premium.)

  2. #107
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    Beta's actually closed StiTch, we're just all going to have to test it when it goes Live...!
    Ah, the...er...most exciting kind of testing! *chuckles*

    Ah well, shows how much I get involved directly with betas. They kinda ruin the magic for me. But then, I'm also that weird PC gamer that never uses mods...

    *ahem*

    Cheers for the discussion all, especially to Sandro for his involvement.
    "Please replace these components if use causes fatal damage: HEAT SINK. MAGAZINE. OPERATOR"

  3. #108
    Just chiming in here, I'm in too minds about this, I like the idea of projectile weapons being less viable due to this but also agree they shouldn't be made obsolete as a result. But the same should apply to heatsink reloads during combat, in that they shouldn't be impossible to do but could be delayed till after shields have dropped.

    I tend to think the figure being thrown around of 2 seconds for an ammo synthesis is kind of way off base, it's trivial to the point of it might as well not exist, and isn't any different to a simple clip reload. The reasoning supporting a short time boils down to one thing, and that is that the synthesis is halted instead of slowed on being hit.

    What should happen IMO is when you do a synthesis, the materials are used & synthesis begins, it will take say 30 seconds for heatsinks and maybe 10-15 for ammo but when hit instead of cancelling the synthesis, it's rate gets slowed considerably (never stopped, I'm thinking a tenth of the rate) and the rate steadily climbs back up to normal speed while not being hit until it's at full rate again (so minimum time would be 30 or 15 seconds depending on type of synthesis but could be 300 or 150 under non relenting fire). Meaning it will always succeed eventually but the time it takes depends on your opponents ability to hit you and your ability to evade. Also I don't know if this happens or not but it should be like repairing with AFMU, in that while something is being synthesized for a module, the module is switched offline, and needs to be brought back online before use (if done early you forfeit the synthesis & materials).

  4. #109
    Originally Posted by Moesis View Post (Source)
    What should happen IMO is when you do a synthesis, the materials are used & synthesis begins, it will take say 30 seconds for heatsinks and maybe 10-15 for ammo but when hit instead of cancelling the synthesis, it's rate gets slowed considerably (never stopped, I'm thinking a tenth of the rate) and the rate steadily climbs back up to normal speed while not being hit until it's at full rate again
    This would be a superb solution in terms of game balance.

    I think in terms of game play it might result in fights becoming yet more delayed but even with that risk, I applaud.
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  5. #110
    How can 1v1 duels last THAT long? If I ran out of Ammo I would just high-wake out of boredom - no way I'm going to spend more than 10-15 minutes for a duel.

    If they don't nerf shield stacking I think I will give up vanilla PvP and only have non-engineered brawls outside stations...
    My Glorious Flightstation
    CMDR Herbrand - FA Off Trainee - HTC Vive user

  6. #111
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    -Snip-
    So am I, I really dislike the hitpoint inflation and many more things but believe me whe n Isay that the low ammo pool and nerf for synthesis is actually a good thing and nothing of a big probnlem compared to other issues like some effects just being borderline broken.
    Let alone the nature of strict upgrades instead of modifications (G5 DD being a must-have for all kinds of ships).
    What is needed (And I say this since the release of the borderline broken engineers patch) is a major balance pass (part 2).
    But I have lost hope. FDev has proven to work incredibly slow, slowed than they used to. Empty announcements such as Icarus Cup or whatnot are simply ignored and left behind. They start doing stuff and do it halfway through until they realize that resources are not enough as calculated at best case scenarios so they abandon it or just release insulting low quality content like multicrew.

    Usually once stuff goes life some minor bugs will occur which is okay but once in the know issue section I expect them to be fixed in a couple of weeks. However, all the patches from Horizons contained minor and even some major bugs which stayed around for months ... if not a whole year.
    One could argue that FDev is doing stuff wrong but how can you do stuff wrong if you are not even doing it at all?
    It's already beyond quality issues, quantity now also suffers for whatever reason. The slow developement progress combined with low quality content and the lack of communication - let alone the acknowledgement - of issues and plans has finally stolen my hope.
    It will be enough for some mediocre and casual player, old fans of Elite I suppose but once Elite has got some serious competition I will leave.

    So many things have bee nshared on the forums and on reddit that need attention .. not even said posts have recieved attention so how can the issues?

    Fortunately or unfortunately this affects all groups of players. PvEers, PvPers, explorers, traders, etc. alike. The C&P adjustments are a single step towards what has to be done but it's obviously far from enough and doesn#t solve the problem at all. I will enjoy FDevs insufficient quantity and laugh at palyers complaining about getting blown up as innocent CMDRs after the C&P 'overhaul' was supposed to protect them while I continue to cry about healing beams outtanking the full DPS of two gunships.
    Commander Crimson Kaim, hunting imperials since 3301!
    > Video logs <

    Loyal Federation Supporter



  7. #112
    I only ever used synthesis once in pvp-battles, and that was with a ship i outfitted with double shot frag cannons / pacifiers. These frag cannons with double shot are overpowered anyway and dont need the only drawback they have, the low ammo, removed by synthesis.
    I would absolutely vote pro 30 seconds synthesis delay for ammo and heatsinks.

  8. #113
    Concerning the synthesis timer and interruption mechanic, some observations from myself and Cmdr Harry Potter in another thread:

    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    About synthesis interruption, the latest from Sandro was:



    (I think 'cannon' was a typo, meaning 'kinetic.')


    I'm afraid that a 2 second timer wouldn't appear to have much effect upon FAS / FdL etc spamming basic reloads.

    My concern was that the 30 second timer on everything, plus instant interruption, as was in place at the end of Beta 2.4, would have left a big ship unable to reload, ever ... against mediums with effectively infinite ammo.

    But with a 2 second timer it's basically business as usual, on basic reloads.

    All that said, Sandro does say that revisions might be made after this goes Live.

    I suppose one solution could be a 30 second timer on everything, but do away with the whole interruption mechanic. That stops continuous fire while allowing ships of every size and speed the same chance to reload.
    Originally Posted by besieger View Post (Source)
    Yes I 100% agree a blanket 30sec timer for reloads regardless to damage, that way there is some tact to starting the reload as you run out of ammo, timing it well will ensure you are always running with ammo and punish those who cannot follow the flow of the battle, while allowing big ships to reload.
    I think that consideration should be given to doing away with the interruption mechanic albeit whilst going back up to a 30 second blanket delay as above.
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  9. #114
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    Concerning the synthesis timer and interruption mechanic, some observations from myself and Cmdr Harry Potter in another thread:


    I think that consideration should be given to doing away with the interruption mechanic albeit whilst going back up to a 30 second blanket delay as above.
    That allows you to synth heat sinks, mid combat, "forever" allowing nuts silent rail tank monsters. Which was the main reason for making the change to synthesis. The idea was to stop heat sinks (mainly) from being created in combat.

  10. #115
    Originally Posted by Novo Mundus View Post (Source)
    That allows you to synth heat sinks, mid combat, "forever" allowing nuts silent rail tank monsters. Which was the main reason for making the change to synthesis. The idea was to stop heat sinks (mainly) from being created in combat.

    Sorry, we are indeed having the same conversation twice in two different places.

    For any who wants to see why I respond to say that prolonging Silent Running has zero relevance to PvP combat see my post in the other thread, here:

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...t=#post5910056
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  11. #116
    Hi everyone, glad to see there is some discussion on this topic as it is quite controversial. As someone who primarily plays for multiplayer interaction in the competitive scene, you can find me doing 1v1's every day of the week, sometimes upwards of 5 a day. When I heard down the grapevine that ammo synthesis was going to be cancelled out by incoming damage, I was certain that they were joking, but apparently this is not the case. I will address some of the issues and concerns that I have read as I have parsed through this entire thread. Firstly, many noted that large ships are under constant fire, this is true, good luck ever getting an ammo synthesis off in a 1v1, let alone winged combat. One might stretch and scratch to scramble to argue that well, large ships can boost under or over each other and begin synthesis then in hopes of getting a synth off. Using your imagination, you can easily see that a turreted (anything) would mean that there is absolutely 0 time when the opponent IS NOT taking damage.

    I have also heard the typical complaints about shield booster stacking. To address that, consider that with engineering, every single hardpoint that is on a ship, is now doing more damage, with the distributors, people now have more energy to work with. The shields have already been addressed before so they have absolutely no place in this thread. I've heard weak arguments for a "laser meta" because now "you can't synth." No PVP player wants to commit to a plethora of lasers due to how improperly balanced they are. Yes, I have said it, lasers are not balanced, and have not been since the release of engineering.

    Nothing has changed with lasers at all, but what has changed, is that shields are now stronger, shields have more thermal resistances, etc. What does this mean you ask? It means that currently lasers draw too much power from the power plant, draw too much distributor from the capacitor, generate too much heat, and have damage fall off that is lacking in range considerably. The answer here is not to force people away from all of the weapons they have been using, but to properly balance the lasers and give some real incentive to use them (and not ammo synthesis.....). The only argument for the usage of lasers at the moment is, they take no ammo, so I can understand the nearsightedness of thinking this is the time for lasers to shine when all other hardpoints will be made obsolete. At the moment, lasers are essentially pure con, with the only benefit of being that they don't require ammo. They were previously balanced before engineering with the idea that they were definitively the strongest weapons against shields at the time, and the most effective. One might argue frags, but they did not have the range nor the thermal damage type at the time. Lasers are no longer the strongest hardpoint of choice when targeting shields. This has failed to be addressed since engineering has released and this is why competent players outright refuse to run any type of laser.

    Back to the ammo synthesis timer and damage cancellation. This is a mechanic that no one has asked for, and I fail to understand how this will benefit any of the sub communities within Elite Dangerous. I can understand that its origin came from the addition of heatsink and chaff synthesis, but breaking another game mechanic, for an already broken game mechanic does not seem an ideal means of addressing a balance issue. In terms of winged combat and 1v1's ships that used to require multiple heatsinks and chaffs can now be reliant on a singular utility of each. So for people who complain about shield booster stacking due to their lack of insight, understand that this will essentially make it worse. Also, those who are willing to gather materials for synthesis will have a definitive advantage over those who choose not to farm synths for heatsinks/chaff. This will alienate a majority of the community who already tires of farming ammo synths and thus run multiples of a utility type. Another point that I saw that was addressed was that with engineering, not all hardpoints have recieved an adequate ammo capacity increase, some have, but not all. This is something to consider as many of us who do PVP, go through synths quite readily. One might say synths are infinite ammo, but understand that in order to play competitively, we players have to actually take time out of our day to do things that we would ultimately prefer not to do (surface prospecting.) Give any true PVP player the ability to buy the materials with millions of credit to synth, and they would likely prefer that. Give them an option to use internal modules in the same fashion as cargo, and have ammo racks, and many players would do that as well.

    I am not here to talk about how heatsink and chaff synthing will ultimately hurt PVP, that is for another thread, I just acknowledge that the birth of the ammo synth controversy arose from a poorly thought out heatsink and chaff proposition. Heatsink and chaff synth is a wonderful idea for exploration ships, have it cost 10 zirconium and 10 arsenic/antimoney, and 10 tungsten and you can be sure that the PVP players will not be synthesizing it to their exploitative potential. Again I state that the ammo synth timer and cancellation was not an idea called for by anyone in the PVP community, and it is an entirely unwelcomed change.

    For those that complain about 1v1's lasting 45 minutes to an hour, 95% of 1v1s that I do in my corvette are won or lost within 20 minutes. I think that is a fair time table for a minigame within the Elite Dangerous Universe. The time to kill is absolutely fine as it is, and if you think it is not, perhaps you need to take a serious look at your hardpoint loadout, and then take a long while to think if you should be shooting at a cutter with a sidewinder and making complaints that it is taking too long to kill them. A reduction or increase in TTK is unwarranted among competent pilots, so instead of making assumptions based entirely on ignorance, one might actually do some homework on the issue.

    In conclusion, ammo synth cancellation is a bad idea, spawned from another bad idea. Making any balance adjustments based on two consecutive bad ideas is unwise. Shields are where they need to be in relation to the damage output of engineered ships. NPC's could use a buff but that is besides the point, if you want a challenge vs NPC's then you personally as an individual make the choice to not run boosters, do not be hypocritical and expect people in the competitive community to suffer based on your degree of casual-ness. When a large ship is interdicted by 2-4 well engineered Fer de lances, you can imagine the damage output. As is, a very small percentage of players fly in large ships in open play or PVP because of this factor. So you can imagine when you are making the argument that an NPC python is too easy of a target in your 8 booster anaconda, that it is completely misguided and you should be complaining about NPC balancing with the new engineering. If you feel that your NPC interaction is now lackluster in your engineered ships vs their non engineered ships, perhaps it is time to ascend to the level of PVP to get your thrills. Lasers have been broken since engineering was released, they need attention, this is self-evident. If you change ammo synthesis, the PVP community will suffer and it will essentially make absolutely no difference at all to casuals targeting 1 ship at a time in a haz-res in solo play. PVP players don't want to synth, but are forced to due to the terrible balancing of lasers, PVP players don't want to spend hours chasing down materials in their SRV, we are forced to because of terrible laser balancing. Consider that when you make the claim that synthing is infinite ammo. We may spend hours at a time stocking 40 reloads per hardpoint, only to have to blow through all of them in a days worth of combat. Once again, lasers are broken. Perhaps the dev's should consider fixing the lasers, increasing the ammo capacity of all weapons and making synths less costly, or allowing one to trade hull reinforcement for additional ammo storage capacity. On a final note, I can understand perhaps a 10-15 second synthesis penalty for weapons (THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN 100% DEPLETED) Keep that last bit in mind. Synthesis is not something that should take place from within the weapon itself, but from within the ship. I can understand that synth taking time to complete and being delivered to said weapon, but cutting all dps potential out during a synth seems unwarranted and unwelcomed. Those who time their synths correctly will not be punished by this mechanic, and those who fail to monitor the remaining ammo in the hardpoints will be punished. This is fair. Heatsink and chaff synthesis is great for exploration ships who do not have stations to dock at to replenish. Properly address this by enforcing that they have an exceptionally high cost to synth so they do not become an exploited meta within the PVP community that will yeild nothing but grief for the majority of players and spawn numerous threads about balance. I hope I have been clear, and if you have read through the entirety of this post, I congratulate your dedication. Thank you all for your time.

  12. #117
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    Sorry, we are indeed having the same conversation twice in two different places.

    For any who wants to see why I respond to say that prolonging Silent Running has zero relevance to PvP combat see my post in the other thread, here:

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...t=#post5910056
    I definitely agree, the only people calling for this are people who don't do PVP and have no idea how PVP is balanced and those who want Bigships to entirely disappear from PVP because they are too lazy to make their own and or are incapable of destroying them.

  13. #118
    Originally Posted by Pharmacist View Post (Source)
    Hi everyone, glad to see there is some discussion on this topic as it is quite controversial. As someone who primarily plays for multiplayer interaction in the competitive scene, you can find me doing 1v1's every day of the week, sometimes upwards of 5 a day. When I heard down the grapevine that ammo synthesis was going to be cancelled out by incoming damage, I was certain that they were joking, but apparently this is not the case. I will address some of the issues and concerns that I have read as I have parsed through this entire thread. Firstly, many noted that large ships are under constant fire, this is true, good luck ever getting an ammo synthesis off in a 1v1, let alone winged combat. One might stretch and scratch to scramble to argue that well, large ships can boost under or over each other and begin synthesis then in hopes of getting a synth off. Using your imagination, you can easily see that a turreted (anything) would mean that there is absolutely 0 time when the opponent IS NOT taking damage.

    I have also heard the typical complaints about shield booster stacking. To address that, consider that with engineering, every single hardpoint that is on a ship, is now doing more damage, with the distributors, people now have more energy to work with. The shields have already been addressed before so they have absolutely no place in this thread. I've heard weak arguments for a "laser meta" because now "you can't synth." No PVP player wants to commit to a plethora of lasers due to how improperly balanced they are. Yes, I have said it, lasers are not balanced, and have not been since the release of engineering.

    Nothing has changed with lasers at all, but what has changed, is that shields are now stronger, shields have more thermal resistances, etc. What does this mean you ask? It means that currently lasers draw too much power from the power plant, draw too much distributor from the capacitor, generate too much heat, and have damage fall off that is lacking in range considerably. The answer here is not to force people away from all of the weapons they have been using, but to properly balance the lasers and give some real incentive to use them (and not ammo synthesis.....). The only argument for the usage of lasers at the moment is, they take no ammo, so I can understand the nearsightedness of thinking this is the time for lasers to shine when all other hardpoints will be made obsolete. At the moment, lasers are essentially pure con, with the only benefit of being that they don't require ammo. They were previously balanced before engineering with the idea that they were definitively the strongest weapons against shields at the time, and the most effective. One might argue frags, but they did not have the range nor the thermal damage type at the time. Lasers are no longer the strongest hardpoint of choice when targeting shields. This has failed to be addressed since engineering has released and this is why competent players outright refuse to run any type of laser.

    Back to the ammo synthesis timer and damage cancellation. This is a mechanic that no one has asked for, and I fail to understand how this will benefit any of the sub communities within Elite Dangerous. I can understand that its origin came from the addition of heatsink and chaff synthesis, but breaking another game mechanic, for an already broken game mechanic does not seem an ideal means of addressing a balance issue. In terms of winged combat and 1v1's ships that used to require multiple heatsinks and chaffs can now be reliant on a singular utility of each. So for people who complain about shield booster stacking due to their lack of insight, understand that this will essentially make it worse. Also, those who are willing to gather materials for synthesis will have a definitive advantage over those who choose not to farm synths for heatsinks/chaff. This will alienate a majority of the community who already tires of farming ammo synths and thus run multiples of a utility type. Another point that I saw that was addressed was that with engineering, not all hardpoints have recieved an adequate ammo capacity increase, some have, but not all. This is something to consider as many of us who do PVP, go through synths quite readily. One might say synths are infinite ammo, but understand that in order to play competitively, we players have to actually take time out of our day to do things that we would ultimately prefer not to do (surface prospecting.) Give any true PVP player the ability to buy the materials with millions of credit to synth, and they would likely prefer that. Give them an option to use internal modules in the same fashion as cargo, and have ammo racks, and many players would do that as well.

    I am not here to talk about how heatsink and chaff synthing will ultimately hurt PVP, that is for another thread, I just acknowledge that the birth of the ammo synth controversy arose from a poorly thought out heatsink and chaff proposition. Heatsink and chaff synth is a wonderful idea for exploration ships, have it cost 10 zirconium and 10 arsenic/antimoney, and 10 tungsten and you can be sure that the PVP players will not be synthesizing it to their exploitative potential. Again I state that the ammo synth timer and cancellation was not an idea called for by anyone in the PVP community, and it is an entirely unwelcomed change.

    For those that complain about 1v1's lasting 45 minutes to an hour, 95% of 1v1s that I do in my corvette are won or lost within 20 minutes. I think that is a fair time table for a minigame within the Elite Dangerous Universe. The time to kill is absolutely fine as it is, and if you think it is not, perhaps you need to take a serious look at your hardpoint loadout, and then take a long while to think if you should be shooting at a cutter with a sidewinder and making complaints that it is taking too long to kill them. A reduction or increase in TTK is unwarranted among competent pilots, so instead of making assumptions based entirely on ignorance, one might actually do some homework on the issue.

    In conclusion, ammo synth cancellation is a bad idea, spawned from another bad idea. Making any balance adjustments based on two consecutive bad ideas is unwise. Shields are where they need to be in relation to the damage output of engineered ships. NPC's could use a buff but that is besides the point, if you want a challenge vs NPC's then you personally as an individual make the choice to not run boosters, do not be hypocritical and expect people in the competitive community to suffer based on your degree of casual-ness. When a large ship is interdicted by 2-4 well engineered Fer de lances, you can imagine the damage output. As is, a very small percentage of players fly in large ships in open play or PVP because of this factor. So you can imagine when you are making the argument that an NPC python is too easy of a target in your 8 booster anaconda, that it is completely misguided and you should be complaining about NPC balancing with the new engineering. If you feel that your NPC interaction is now lackluster in your engineered ships vs their non engineered ships, perhaps it is time to ascend to the level of PVP to get your thrills. Lasers have been broken since engineering was released, they need attention, this is self-evident. If you change ammo synthesis, the PVP community will suffer and it will essentially make absolutely no difference at all to casuals targeting 1 ship at a time in a haz-res in solo play. PVP players don't want to synth, but are forced to due to the terrible balancing of lasers, PVP players don't want to spend hours chasing down materials in their SRV, we are forced to because of terrible laser balancing. Consider that when you make the claim that synthing is infinite ammo. We may spend hours at a time stocking 40 reloads per hardpoint, only to have to blow through all of them in a days worth of combat. Once again, lasers are broken. Perhaps the dev's should consider fixing the lasers, increasing the ammo capacity of all weapons and making synths less costly, or allowing one to trade hull reinforcement for additional ammo storage capacity. On a final note, I can understand perhaps a 10-15 second synthesis penalty for weapons (THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN 100% DEPLETED) Keep that last bit in mind. Synthesis is not something that should take place from within the weapon itself, but from within the ship. I can understand that synth taking time to complete and being delivered to said weapon, but cutting all dps potential out during a synth seems unwarranted and unwelcomed. Those who time their synths correctly will not be punished by this mechanic, and those who fail to monitor the remaining ammo in the hardpoints will be punished. This is fair. Heatsink and chaff synthesis is great for exploration ships who do not have stations to dock at to replenish. Properly address this by enforcing that they have an exceptionally high cost to synth so they do not become an exploited meta within the PVP community that will yeild nothing but grief for the majority of players and spawn numerous threads about balance. I hope I have been clear, and if you have read through the entirety of this post, I congratulate your dedication. Thank you all for your time.
    Read though it all. Articulate and reasoned arguments, albeit a bit tl;dr for some perhaps. I'll let everyone else debate the points you address (especially TrueSilver) because I mostly play PvE.

    To that, I mostly agree with your points regarding PvE except, "If you feel that your NPC interaction is now lackluster in your engineered ships vs their non engineered ships, perhaps it is time to ascend to the level of PVP to get your thrills." I would never feel that my NPC interaction is lackluster. I thank FDevs for that, however, I wouldn't mind if there was a dedicated place where I could have a go at those OP NPCs that made a brief appearence with 2.1 (no, it's not Conflict Zones but similar with harder NPCs).
    "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos." - Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics

    Elite Dangerous Lead Designer's most recent games:
    Kinect Star Wars (2012) (Senior Designer)
    Haze (2008) (Lead Designer)

  14. #119
    Not a bad idea at all. "Resource Extraction Site: Brutal" Conflict Zone: Brutal Intensity. Seems like a relatively easy addition for QOL of PVE players who like to engineer beyond their current needs.

  15. #120
    Great Insight from Pharmacist - and i can whole heartedly get behind the idea of - not having the delay or cancellation of an ammo synth [while under fire] be a thing.
    however in the same token, i think there is a level of credible thought behind a delay or a cancellation on more premium reloads - (atm, in some PVP a premium reload can mean the difference sometimes in a fight - especially if the odds are weighed against you, and you *could* win, but multiple premiums - break the engagement's viability) {isolated incidents for sure, but bear with the generalization}

    So while, i am (in the larger scheme) against a complete and utter counter to a synth being - under fire - or with delay to activation - i can understand the reasoning, and if looked at - i believe a more suitable "nerf" in that sense - would be towards the more premium ammunition reloads - if you are under fire, perhaps the reload takes longer - but completely hard cancelled seems, a little too steep - at least in my honest opinion. (a CMDR already has to take their eyes away from having LOS to synth or AFMU in combat - and for pilots who fly in FAoff, or for more tempermental ships, that can be a costly few seconds.)

    (tangent with lasers being as more debuff or buff weapons, and having little viability in most PVP - i think the more adequate change, should have been a proper buff to laser weaponry - idk, just a tangent.

    IF anything rapid spamming synth tier 1 recipes, seems somewhat too cheap [mattes per reload] to do on certain weapons in the game - and i'm more for a massive increase to the mattes needed per type of reload, to discourage utter reliance on synths
    just my two cents, in this area

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast