Community not interested in Tier?

in response to the post of lugzan

L items already have sockets now so thats not needed to implent
 
in response to the post of lugzan

L items already have sockets now so thats not needed to implent

I'm sure he means the sockets are there when you loot the weapon
 
i will not be using ther tier system until they remove the RANDOM decay.
 
i will not be using ther tier system until they remove the RANDOM decay.

I agree it should be a given number they last, not this random crap.
 
those. many will risk, some of them will lose, but the house will always win if gambling is involved and that is the main point behind the socketing - new level of gambling in hunting and mining section ;)

why am I having the feeling that the more gambling possibilities has been added to this "product" or project, the less people believe in it and the more it turns the ship's bottom up... :whistle:


J.

There are only about 80 real gamblers ingame, splitted in two societies :D

RIVERBOAT GAMBLERS! :D


..kidding...
Enhancers are not that much a gamble, if one looks at the TT value.
Some say that it is way too much a gamble to use a gun that needs 2400 rounds of ammo per shot and ave a 8% chance of missing that shot and rather prefer a gun with 1000 ammo per shot.
If for instance I take 10 accuracy enhancers and they last me a whole Apis, thats 6 PEDs TT value lost on the whole gun for 20% more criticals (or 2,4% criticials compared to 2,0% ).
Even though that is only 26 more criticals in the whole life of the gun, damagewise it means roughly 33 PEDs saved.
Surely not much, but it is one more small step to reduce costs (and my last 10 accuracy enhancers lasted the whole gun, even had 2 left for the next)

At first those enhancers feel akward and surely the "random" thingy feels not good either, but somehow it is like the loot swings, one must look at the big picture and calculate the average over time.
 
I mine, and hunt mainly with melee weapons.

The apparent benefit of a Finder Enhancer seems to be about 0.5%. Why would I pay the current price of 10 times that for the Enhancer? And mining returns are impossible to compare at such low levels.

Using Enhancers on L Melee weapons is is simply impractical, the weapons are used up too quickly. A completely useless function, and predictably so.

To quote the charter of the South Sea Bubble scheme - The Tiering system is 'For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is' (or how it works).
 
What about the fitting of for example damage enhancers on different weapons?

lets say I buy a damage enhancer level II for 50 peds and put it on my tiered up opalo
it will mean a 10% increase of a whopping 0.8 damage, bringing the total damage to 8.8!
Sadly it breaks after one use....

lets say i put the same damage enhancer level II on my marber bravo bringing it's total damage to 108.9, 9.9 increase per shot
fortunately it breaks after 1200 uses....

Do I need to explain why random decay/vaporation and relative damage is a bit messed up?

It needs to be relative to its tt-cost. if base damage is one pec per 4 damage
(which most weapons sortof max bring, some a bit more some a bit less)
then an enhancer worth 40 pecs tt should bring a total of 160 damage.
if you want to have it relative to the weapon, fine then the total usage for an opalo is 160:0.8 = 200 uses
 

You've made me look again at the difference between Ranged and Melee.

According to Wiki, the Damage Enhancer increases damage by 10%, but it also increases decay by 10%.

Because Melee cost is entirely decay, the price you pay putting an Enhancer on a Melee Weapon is uneconomic at any price. It's also irrelevant what level you put it on - it's a straight loss whatever you pay.

The Accuracy Enhancer has a benefit of about 0.2%, so the numbers on Wiki for the Damage Enhancer might not be quite accurate, but the same principle holds - the Tier system treats Melee Weapons considerably worse than Ranged. (It's barely usable on L Melee of course)

There are also differences between Ranged weapons - some use more ammo and have less decay. Has anyone established that the decay is increased by the same 10% for these? If it is indeed the same, this would also confirm that the Tier System favours even some Ranged weapons over others. It's design looks worse every time I look at it.
 
Last edited:
Not Items

The fact that enhancers are stackable indicates they are intended to be used in quantity, so whenever we talk about them one at a time we miss a part the picture. The low tt value and stackability are central to their design, quite the opposite of plates and amps. The stackability leads to two truths (one stacked on the other).

  • To be stackable, each unit must be identical.
  • To be stackable and to not be consumed on first use, each unit must decay randomly.
    (It must be identical upon each use.)

To have specific decay instead of random decay, they would need to be items. They are not and thinking of them as such is a mistake. This is not to say that this is right or wrong, good or bad, it's just a statement of fact.

:beerchug:

Miles
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
My 2 cents: I am not interested in the new Tier feature. It seems very risky for good (UL) items.

I wish they would implemented something useful like using broken (L) items to repair non-broken (L) items (e.g. drag and drop a broken (L) item on top of another (L) item (of the same type) to raise it's TT value by the value of the broken item).
 
Because Melee cost is entirely decay, the price you pay putting an Enhancer on a Melee Weapon is uneconomic at any price. It's also irrelevant what level you put it on - it's a straight loss whatever you pay.
Great... melee people get screwed yet again!!! I was hoping the tiers would act sort of like amps for melee, but it sounds like they are nothing but ped drain.
 
Too expensive.
Limited usability.
Random consumption.
Gambling (for UL items).

This is why I will never tier anything as the system currently stands.
 
Any new items introduced in to the game ALWAYS have higher markup at first than later once people's interest in them goes down...

This is happening with tier stuff now...

In the past it happened with...

introduction of SIB items...

introduction of Sib mellee item blueprints (man I got screwed on buying that rustic slo bp when it first came out - lost an entire ghost armor to the TT after one too many drinks and seeing that bp haunt me in the auction)...

even resettlement containers are not cheaper than when they first appeared...

It's not abnormal. It's a trend. If you ever loot something new, get rid of it in 48 hours or it'll go down in value!


Hehe do you remember first explosive ammunition sold @ 1 ped / piece, just after the "discovery" rofl... some ppl actually got their monthly budget that way...

I.
 
except for pvp, it seems worthless atm, its a broken system.

(which may be all that MA wants it to be? *shrug*)
 
Too expensive.
Limited usability.
Random consumption.
Gambling (for UL items).

This is why I will never tier anything as the system currently stands.

LOL...
I'm pretty sure it was only a couple days after posting this, that I tiered my finder and my drill!
:laugh: "...how clear a reflection can be."* :laugh:



* - (c) roamn, so so fresh ltd nz 2010
 
Many more will be tiering medium gear since enhancers will provide a smaller quantum for the % than the L versions, or better said a more manageable ( budget ) cost versus benefits.
 
Does people even want to tier up their items?

Has MA made a system that is of no interest to the community at all?

For me answers are
1) NO I dont want to tier up my items.
2) Yes, I dont have any interest in the tiering system

I am using mostly UL things and dont want to risk loosing them so they are stuck at 0.9

But I know a few people who ARE intestested in tiering their stuff.
Not sure how big the % of ppl is though.
 
The fact that enhancers are stackable indicates they are intended to be used in quantity, so whenever we talk about them one at a time we miss a part the picture. The low tt value and stackability are central to their design, quite the opposite of plates and amps. The stackability leads to two truths (one stacked on the other).

  • To be stackable, each unit must be identical.
  • To be stackable and to not be consumed on first use, each unit must decay randomly.
    (It must be identical upon each use.)

To have specific decay instead of random decay, they would need to be items. They are not and thinking of them as such is a mistake. This is not to say that this is right or wrong, good or bad, it's just a statement of fact.

:beerchug:

Miles

I did not think of that Good point!
Case closed.
+Rep
 
Back
Top