category Ideas for Augments!

[Frylock 1,617]

3 minutes ago, nikunj04 said:

By disabling Boosted armour bonus, are you referring to the normal armour provided by the supply or the increased armour that can be applied through external means like defender ? Other than that I see no problem since we already are experienced with this mechanism in the Freeze turret.

Im referring to both. Meaning it would disable all forms of bonus armors both from the supply and drones like crisis and defender temporally. 

[NikmanGT 4,362]

Just now, MysticBlood said:

Im referring to both. Meaning it would disable all forms of bonus armors both from the supply and drones like crisis and defender temporally. 

Sounds good because after the applied effect over, the concept of bringing back the BA supply bonus too is balanced unlike the current jammers which permanently disables  extra BA or BD effect from drones.

[The_Voltage 178]

Isnt that be AP-mix for FB?

[Dopamine 2,161]

1 minute ago, The_Voltage said:

Isnt that be AP-mix for FB?

Sound like a partial AP, because it doesn´t negate the protection modules, as it seems from the description.

[Incorp 2,084]

Won't this be a new SE, I'm not so sure about this...

[Dopamine 2,161]

1 hour ago, Incorp said:

Won't this be a new SE, I'm not so sure about this...

Yeah I'm not very fond of adding new SE's either. Could get a bit confounded very quickly.

[Frylock 1,617]

4 hours ago, The_Voltage said:

Isnt that be AP-mix for FB?

No its not ap. The feature is just to remove armor bonus not effecting modules. 

[The_Voltage 178]

3 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

No its not ap. The feature is just to remove armor bonus not effecting modules. 

Nor Titan's dome?

[Frylock 1,617]

2 minutes ago, The_Voltage said:

Nor Titan's dome?

This would not effect titans dome. 

[yellowghetto 3,206]

9 hours ago, nikunj04 said:

By disabling Boosted armour bonus, are you referring to the normal armour provided by the supply or the increased armour that can be applied through external means like defender ? Other than that I see no problem since we already are experienced with this mechanism in the Freeze turret.

This literally makes no sense. 
Freezing disables damage boosts.

AP disables armor boosts.

If we are talking about bonus armor, such as sources from Defender and Crisis, then that is literally what Jammer does.

9 hours ago, MysticBlood said:

Name: Pryotech

Description: 

I was thinking a new augment that disables boosted armor bonus when burned from a firebird. The duration of the afterburn will last 5 seconds (5 ticks) instead of 10..However, you can still keep trying to burn to keep the boosted armor bonus disabled. And will have a range increase from 15.0 to 20.0. The draw back will be faster fuel consumption rate and the burn time.

Also the player will be able to have boosted armor bonus back if they are no longer burned. 

Reason: I feel like there isn't enough options for firebird augments and playing the same ones over and over; makes the firebird gameplay feel dull. I also want  firebird to have more interesting gameplay as well being balanced in the current state of the game. 

This Augment what you are trying to say makes no sense as it would require a buff to the burning status effect itself, which to me makes no sense. It would render the updated “Jammer” Status effect a bit pointless.

If anything, this would just be a Jamming Mix Augment for Firebird, which I’m not a fan of. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by yellowghetto

[yellowghetto 3,206]

You said it is 
• Firebird Exclusive
   - Fox, reduces damage but does nothing to armor bonus being disabled
• Does not effect the Burning Status Effect
   - Heat Resistance, Heat Immunity does not work to prevent armor being disabled because it is a Firebird exclusive ability
• Not Jammer
   - Jammer Immunity does not work

The problem with this idea, is that there are no legitimate counters to a Turret exclusive effect. 
I think the other melee Turrets are obviously better but for this to be a random buff, not to mention, an exclusive feature, LOCKED behind an Augment, seems like a random buff pulled out of my butt. I’m sorry dude.

 

Summarizing what I think.

Firebird could need a specialized Augment to change its gameplay. 
This idea, isn’t it. In my opinion.

Edited January 6, 2022 by yellowghetto

[B.A.B.I 643]

10 hours ago, MysticBlood said:

I feel like there isn't enough options for firebird augments and playing the same ones over and over; makes the firebird gameplay feel dull.

Agree

[yellowghetto 3,206]

On 1/2/2022 at 10:23 AM, TheCongoSpider said:

This augment is in a tight spot and has been ever since its introduction. Isida with the way it deals damage enemies and its narrow cone angle made it hard to effectively use this augment, or justify using it over Stock/others. WIth having less energy to attack and healing staying the same as Stock (relatively low) it is encouraged to use it primarily for offensive purposes. 

 

When I decided to use it again in some battles, I was often in situations where I had more opportunities to heal allies than to attack enemies. Using energy for the Stock healing leaves little for attacking, where every tick matters with the increased consumption and the aforementioned difficulty with dealing comfortable damage. 

 

 

To assist with this, I ask to decrease the neutral energy consumption for this augment from 50 eng/sec to 0 eng/sec. This allows it to expend as much energy all of its energy if it chooses to attack solely on damage output. If it is having difficulty keeping the beam attached to allies when healing allies then it will expend as much as possible healing allies as comfortably as possible to preserve as much energy as possible to use for attacking. 

I agree with this. Isida is a melee, single target Turret. 
It has just enough DPS and energy to destroy most tanks, but what hurts more is its reload time. 
Using Nanomass Reactor, it consumes energy twice has fast, but it has no increase in damage. You must destroy your enemy in time, and if you don’t, you are left with nothing but a long reload time and most likely exposed out in the middle or warfare.

It is similar to Death Herald Compulsator Railgun and Berserk Ricochet, but the advantage they have, are range.

Edited January 6, 2022 by yellowghetto

[DestrotankAI9 1,513]

I definitely think this augment needs a buff, probably the most useless Isida augment. Overall, I think this augment is worse than stock Isida, because it is very easy to run out of energy compared to stock Isida, and especially if an ally manages to steal your kill.

The very similar augment for Ricochet, Berserk, which also fully reloads the energy bar upon getting kills was in a similar spot to this augment, and it was rightfully buffed to have less of an energy consumption penalty than it had - and now it is a good augment. Personally, I would go for a similar change for Isida Nanomass Reactor - reduce the additional energy consumption when attacking from +50% to +30% (or even to +20-25%, if that is not enough).

I think then this augment would be worthwhile. It definitely needs a buff of some kind, because it does genuinely seem worse than stock Isida.

Edited January 6, 2022 by DestrotankAI9

[Frylock 1,617]

8 hours ago, yellowghetto said:

This Augment what you are trying to say makes no sense as it would require a buff to the burning status effect itself, which to me makes no sense. It would render the updated “Jammer” Status effect a bit pointless.

Sad Stock freeze noises.  Stock freeze and other freezing status augment renders the boosted damage bonus even when using crisis and booster. Wouldn't that count as somewhat as a jammer as well according to your definition? How does my idea makes no sense if the idea of disabling boosted damages  is applied to the current stock freeze? 

Edited January 7, 2022 by MysticBlood

[yellowghetto 3,206]

25 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

Sad Stock freeze noises.  Stock freeze and other freezing status augment renders the boosted damage bonus even when using crisis and booster. Wouldn't that count as somewhat as a jammer as well according to your definition? How does my idea makes no sense if the idea of disabling boosted damages  is applied to the current stock freeze? 

Freeze disables the boosted damage supply, including all bonuses. 
 

What you want is specifically for Firebird, and not other Burning sources and disables Armor bonus only, which is identical or an effect of Jammer. 

This idea is way too specific, and as someone told to me through discussion, it’s trying to skirt around the “rules” of the games mechanics.

“It's creating a separate status effect that is *identical* to one that already exists to create an augment for a turret that pretty much functions like another version of an existing augment, except it has all of these rules and exceptions” - won’t mention who for privacy.

You are asking for something specific for Firebird specifically, with a random passive effect that is only available for one Augment. It seems like an incredibly unfair boost to encourage Firebird usage and has no reason to exist in the game. 
If you wanted this idea to make sense, this passive should be bound to the Burning Status Effect, so that it can be stopped by Heat Immunity. (Some sort of protection.) 

You tried to make an excuse by saying. “Just wear Heat Immunity and Fox”

1) You stated that this is only happens when being burned by Firebird, separate from the burn status effect, which is unfair. You quoted me making an excuse to the Freeze Turret. Here is the thing. Freeze is not the only source of the Cold Status Effect. And ALL OF ITS EFFECTS are prevented by Cold Immunity.
2) Heat Immunity is bound to protect against the Burning Status Effect. Nothing to do to protect against armor bonus being taken away. 

3) If you want this Augment to make sense, the enhanced armor ability MUST be available for all Heat sources. Burning must have parity. You mentioned balanced. With your idea. You want balance of usage rate. Not balance in the game. 

 

From a source I won’t say where, you wanted Firebird to have more skill play. This alone makes no sense to me, as Firebird and Freeze were meant to be already played with simplicity. Simply adding an effect does not require any more skill besides aiming, and holding down your fire button .

 

 

[Frylock 1,617]

17 minutes ago, yellowghetto said:

Freeze disables the boosted damage supply, including all bonuses. 
 

What you want is specifically for Firebird, and not other Burning sources and disables Armor bonus only, which is identical or an effect of Jammer. 

This idea is way too specific, and as someone told to me through discussion, it’s trying to skirt around the “rules” of the games mechanics.

“It's creating a separate status effect that is *identical* to one that already exists to create an augment for a turret that pretty much functions like another version of an existing augment, except it has all of these rules and exceptions” - won’t mention who for privacy.

You are asking for something specific for Firebird specifically, with a random passive effect that is only available for one Augment. It seems like an incredibly unfair boost to encourage Firebird usage and has no reason to exist in the game. 
If you wanted this idea to make sense, this passive should be bound to the Burning Status Effect, so that it can be stopped by Heat Immunity. (Some sort of protection.) 

You tried to make an excuse by saying. “Just wear Heat Immunity and Fox”

1) You stated that this is only happens when being burned by Firebird, separate from the burn status effect, which is unfair. You quoted me making an excuse to the Freeze Turret. Here is the thing. Freeze is not the only source of the Cold Status Effect. And ALL OF ITS EFFECTS are prevented by Cold Immunity.
2) Heat Immunity is bound to protect against the Burning Status Effect. Nothing to do to protect against armor bonus being taken away. 

3) If you want this Augment to make sense, the enhanced armor ability MUST be available for all Heat sources. Burning must have parity. You mentioned balanced. With your idea. You want balance of usage rate. Not balance in the game. 

 

From a source I won’t say where, you wanted Firebird to have more skill play. This alone makes no sense to me, as Firebird and Freeze were meant to be already played with simplicity. Simply adding an effect does not require any more skill besides aiming, and holding down your fire button .

 

 

Also quoting from someone else and not using your own actual input on why this can't physically work is worthless. Thus this wont change my mind. If you really want to challenge me, do it your own way instead of using others thoughts. Also this reason still does not effect my resolve. Therefore, I still stand strong. 

The idea is intended to be as an augment as I have said many times for balance sake and including every variable of the game. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by MysticBlood

[yellowghetto 3,206]

14 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

Also quoting from someone else and not using your own actual input on why this can't physically work is worthless. Thus this wont change my mind. If you really want to challenge me, do it your own way instead of using others thoughts. Also this reason still does not effect my resolve. Therefore, I still stand strong. 

The idea is intended to be as an augment as I have said many times for balance sake and including every variable of the game. 

How is it worthless when it is someone else's opinion on your idea?

[Frylock 1,617]

7 minutes ago, yellowghetto said:

How is it worthless when it is someone else's opinion on your idea?

Its worthless because its not your own thoughts....please use your own thoughts rather than someones else. Who ever thought that at least said a why and I will respect that.

What makes me upset the most is when someone does not use their own analytical input on how and why things may work or not. Maybe Ill change my mind if someone can tell me in their own words why it can or cannot work. Or someone making a better solution considering all factors from all angles. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by MysticBlood

[wolverine848 13,097]

9 hours ago, The_Voltage said:

Nor Titan's dome?

Better not. Already enough counters to the dome.

[yellowghetto 3,206]

3 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

Its worthless because its not your own thoughts....please use your own thoughts rather than someones else. Who ever thought that at least said a why and I will respect that.

What makes me upset the most is when someone does not use their own analytical input on how and why things may work or not. Maybe Ill change my mind if someone can tell me in their own words why it can or cannot work. Or someone making a better solution considering all factors from all angles. 

I've literally gave you the most analytical input on your Augment on why it doesn't work and you can't comprehend it.

Edited January 7, 2022 by yellowghetto
Repeated word

[Frylock 1,617]

33 minutes ago, yellowghetto said:

I've literally gave you the most analytical input on your Augment on why it doesn't work and you can't comprehend it.

Look I am aware of what you and thanks for your input. However, even if you said was true it does not disrupt the whole entire game balance from all angles. 

However, there is one main problem when using the augment. That is when hornet is equiped with firebird with the augment. But other than that I still do not see any other  issues with the augment idea when considering the game balance as a whole.

When I thought about the augment, I thought about turrets, hulls, hull augments, modules, turret augments, status augments, drones, and possibilities with ODs. Thus lead me to the best solution I came up with, was to make the idea as an augment exclusive to firebird rather than stock or even changing the burning status effect as a whole.

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by MysticBlood

[NikmanGT 4,362]

Sounds good  ^^

[K3-19 97]

On 1/6/2022 at 2:24 PM, MysticBlood said:

The duration of the afterburn will last 5 seconds (5 ticks) instead of 10

this is too op if the ticks have the same damage per tick

Looks balanced. And by longer burn time do you mean the time it takes to burn a tank or the time a tank is burned for? Because if it's the time a tank is burned for it would just be an upgraded version of compact fuel tanks.

Edited January 7, 2022 by K3-19

[Frylock 1,617]

29 minutes ago, K3-19 said:

this is too op if the ticks have the same damage per tick

Looks balanced. And by longer burn time do you mean the time it takes to burn a tank or the time a tank is burned for? Because if it's the time a tank is burned for it would just be an upgraded version of compact fuel tanks.

Its the duration on how long the burn will last.