Re-thinking active cores

Re-thinking active cores (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance

Message

Stonehawk -> Re-thinking active cores (11/28/2016 15:11:29)
Currently, most active cores works that way: - Costs energy - Can only be used once - Can be blocked/deflected - Usually deals only 85% damage Why so many drawbacks? I think some of them should be removed. Examples: Chairman's Fury: Either do 100% damage OR remove energy costs. Spirit Thorns (blood hawk armor): It could be re-used, why was it removed? It only works for meele attacks. If it can only be used once, it should affect long-ranged too or make it re-usable again. Hatchling Rush: Either do 100% damage or remove energy costs. It already can only be used once! If we already can only choose 1 single active core for each weapon, I think they should at least have not so many drawbacks, some are really underused because of this. That's why almost everyone use the same cores: azrael's will for gun, generation or piston punch for armor... please fix those many drawbacks of weak active cores so we can consider using them!

.Lord Ginger. -> RE: Re-thinking active cores (11/28/2016 17:50:30)
Thing is when Hatchling Rush was 100% damage, it was nerfed for damage and the healing because it was "OP"(which it honestly wasn't).People don't say that about Frost Shards... Chairman's fury was nerfed with the 85% damage and the strength unnecessary nerfing, the energy wasn't the main part, it was the Strength nerf + 85% damage, same reason why Cyber Static Charge is literally garbage now for Strength Builds. Devs sort of revived a Focus build(not really) and obliterated a super solid strength one. Major thing now is that people are too tanky nowadays, that an 85% usually results in 30 damage, and frankly that's a huge drawback for a core like Chairman's fury.

Stonehawk -> RE: Re-thinking active cores (11/29/2016 14:59:19)
In fact, they kept nerfing skill cores damage and stuff and after some time they decided to nerf strength, which indirectly double nerfed damaging cores. That's why I suggest some cores to either increase damage to 100% again, remove energy costs and/or make it reusable, so they can all be seen again (most are forgotten because of too many drawbacks together). This is a necessary change when we talk about balancing. If cores cost the same price, I guess they should be all useful in some situations, and some of them are never.

The berserker killer -> RE: Re-thinking active cores (11/29/2016 15:27:45)
That's an amazing point Stonehawk. What they didn't account for was the double nerf. Everytime they nerfed the damage on a certain core they also nerfed a certain core stat that increased the damage on said core or weapon. Hence it sometimes led to a stacked nerf which nerfed the core beyond what was initial. Nerfing AZ core, then nerfing gun damage, nerfing hatchling rush then nerfing strength multiple times, etc etc. Devs did not pay attention to this.

Front45 -> RE: Re-thinking active cores (11/29/2016 15:50:04)
There are many wrong things about active and passive cores. need change many things example. 1. delete any energy requirement every active core to use, i mean make it usable with 0 energy 2. make azrael's anguish gun warm-up 1 3. make passive cores movable

Mother1 -> RE: Re-thinking active cores (11/29/2016 16:30:11)
@ Front45 Removing all core costs no offense isn't the best idea. I remember you yourself complaining about the strike core being overused in 2 vs 2 and it being a must have so making energy costs 0 again will make said issue even worse with this core seeing as draining energy is one of the few counters that we have to said core besides the yeti chomp, and the armored roots core. Though if you read the design notes I believe they are going to make all cores unlockable so they can be changed.

Front45 -> RE: Re-thinking active cores (11/29/2016 16:47:39)
Mother1 yes i was asking now as early to warm-up 1 on azrael's gun i say only one. early time when you could use active cores for free, it was good or was bad? i think it was better than now are. that's why it's better delete energy requirement on every active cores, as early was. what was it was best. example: you could always use primary core meteor shower, and do not needed any energy to use no matter for me nothing now. my acc is disabled

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition

0.0625