Noted this in the patch notes:
•Ranged weapons that deal Physical Damage are no longer enhanced by the +% Physical Damage mod on the Counter-Command Exo-Armor, Solanae Sentinel Environmental Suit, and many other armors. ◦This mod only affects Melee weapons/attacks.
Just from that, it appears to time to switch back to energy weapons as the projectile ones were sort of marginal (but useable) except vs. Borg anyway. Is my impression correct?
0
Comments
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
which is likely why they even bothered to make that change to the armor and EV suits in the first place
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
BUT thats no nerv, it didnt work as intended b4
Seriously though, a single weapon shouldn't have only advantages and no disadvantages over all other weapons of it's type and render entire damage types and special weapons obsolete. When it does have these advantages it doesn't need to benefit from even more buffs.
A few days ago I saw someone kill about a third of an Elite drone with that rifle in a single shot. I assume this person was using the armour buffs cause he was a Sci so there's not many other things that could have buffed his damage the way it did. Good that it's fixed.
And they're still the best for Borg since no remodulator needed.
There were two reasons: 1 The shotgun deals shield penetrating damage 2. Till recently there was an unintended side effect from a trait that allowed physical damage from the shotgun to heal the player.
Personally i only use the TR and shotgun against the Borg and Elachi. Against other type of opponents split beam rifles are usually more effective.
Edit: 3 reasons. The Borg don't adapt to it.
You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.
If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.
If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.
Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.
The entitlement is strong in this community!
Or it's a bug and you shouldn't exploit it? People are lucky they don't get banned for exploiting the bugs of this game...Cryptic does this all the time...there is a bug and if it takes a while to fix and more and more start to exploit it and it gets fixed.
If *ANYONE* is to blame it's the people who exploit the bugs then call it a nerf when it is finally fixed...
Here is a wild thought! Stop exploiting bugs that add broken power to your DPS...because you know one day they're likely to get fixed...if anyone is to blame it's exploiters...should get suspensions or bans but you're lucky you all get away scott free.
It wasn't really a bug.
Take the Nanopulse weapons available currently from the Winter Event. They do Plasma Damage, and are boosted by +% Plasma Damage from the approprtiate equipment, traits, bonuses, etc. They are unique weapons, with a damage type otherwise unavailable on that type of weapon, and receive bonuses appropriate to that damage type.
Shotguns don't anymore. You could argue either way whether +% Physical Damage bonuses make sense (yes, being stronger means you can handle more recoil and therefore more forceful shots; no, being stronger doesn't make the gun shoot harder), but this was a nerf because recent +% Physical Damage additions (adding the Terran 2-piece to existing CC/Physical Augmentation Armor) made the Shotgun more powerful than intended. Nothing about the actual mechanics was working differently than designed (a bug), just intended (balance).
At the very least they updated that appropriate tooltips so that they actually say +% Physical Damage (Melee Only), so that these items are doing what they say they are doing, though.
Eh, I've always interpreted the term "bug" as referring to things going wrong from an actual error in coding, in a functional manner rather than in judgement or foresight on the designer's part. This was always functioning as it was written and designed to, it merely worked better than intended in the long run and got a nerf to put it in check.
So a bug can include telling the software to do something that it turns out you really didn't want it to do?
Apparently... yes.
As you say, the +% Physical Damage existed before the Shotgun, so coding it as Physical Damage knowing that +% Physical Damage applies to the Physical Damage type qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the devs didn't want the damage bonus to apply? Using that logic, the Finish Now button exists in the R&D system, so clicking that button knowing that it will Finish Now and cost dilithium qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the player didn't want to spend the dilithium? Is the difference that one person is doing coding work and the other is an end-user?
Hey now, I really am looking for clarification, no need to get insulting. I've carefully avoided that in responding to your posts and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. It just seems that the terms "balance pass" or "nerf" more appropriately apply, but if the term "bug" applies to all errors in both code and judgement so long as it is on the part of a developer... then okay.
"Oh, of course, it's possible that this function returns a null pointer, and if I then ask the null-pointer to give me the value of his member variable, it will crash. Duh! I should probably put in a null-reference check, and just return null myself... Oh, wait, but if I do this, then the outer method will get a NULL and might cause a crash. And damn, why should that method return a null reference at all? Oh, so it does that because the whole outerlying method is called before we even initialized the underlying data structure it asks. Why does it do that? Oh, because we are triggering an event in this thread, and stay in this thread,but the main thread hasn't even run through the initialization methods yet, and the event should probably go through the message queue to be handled in the main thread... But if we do that and make it a non-blocking event, the rest of that method that is throwing the event can't work correctly, but if we block, we're sitting in the middle of a mutex that the main thread also needs to go through. Why are we even doing that other thing again? ... "
(Of course, the mythology behind "Bug" as word is that of a bug crawling into one of those old vacuum tube computers and causing a short or something... Though that might be debunked ... In that it happened, but the term "bug" already was used then, and someone wrote that this meant that this might be the fist time a program failed literally due to a bug...)
I think the real point of clarification I'm looking for is about the actual design aspect. Can a "bug" refer to an unitentional outcome, even after the fact, while functioning properly and exactly as designed? Would it be possible to tell a system to add 2+2, get 4 as a result, and call it a "bug" because you wanted it to give you a 3? Actually, in looking over your responses... yes. If I'm following the logic, since code is written as a means of providing a desired outcome, anything that prevents it from reaching that desired outcome is a "bug" and needs a "bug fix".
So: Any outcome from a given piece of code, even if that code functions properly as it written to do, is considered a "bug" if it does not fit the desired outcome or goal of that code, even after the fact. "Buffs", "nerfs", and "balance passes" are all subtypes of "bug fixes".
Okay, okay, no need to get all CAPITAL LETTERS on me... mustrum already gave a sufficient answer. You win, gratz, it's a "bug".
My bad was kinda zoned posting my remark.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I think that's likely.
I'd do that. If there were a freakin' bug list published.
But there's not. Their 'known issues' in the patch notes are joke. This *never* appeared on it. Even if it did, it should never take over a year to fix a 'bug' as simple as this.
The development team for this game is the flat worst I've even seen since the day of text MUDs. They are horrible.
It's no wonder I find myself logging in less and less and less as time goes on.
In rebuttal there is no such thing as normal, what is normal and sane to one person may be abnormal and insane to another.
Science has its modules and captain abilities to debuff targets on the ground.