Why exactly do the developers think Kinetic Armor is acceptable? Seriously. The MAX needs a considerable work pass.
I'm not sure why people think this is only 5%, it may be poorly worded, but to assume it's only 5% is just ... well not exactly wise. Presumably it's 5% on an allready large existing small arms fire reduction, so like from 80% to 85% is my guesstimate, so that 5% adds up to 25% actual reduction. So if that number were correct, you'd be paying 100 certs for 5%.
Probably because it doesn't look like the MAX has any inherent small arms resistance based on how shotguns and heavier guns wreck them. They have a larger health pool than infantry, but the shots still take as much off per hit. More so because they don't have a regenerating shield that eats the first couple of shots. That and the people in Beta who used their free certs to fill out Kinetic Armor reported that the performance was consistent with it being just 5% like it is worded; they could take one, maybe two, extra bullets.
I don't know if the tooltip is correct, honestly, because there is a huge survivability difference between MAXs with and without kinetic armor.
would love to see someone actually test this out, him saving my certs for when someone does... the auto repair is nice, but with biolabs autohealing, i dont really need it that much. the flak damage resistance is nice, but I never get hit by tanks or planes, my main enemy is infantry, and by the time they see me they either shoot me with guns, or die trying to equip their rocket launchers.
Well if this is true then i think you've discounted the possibility of it only being a 5% multiplicative bonus.
Could you elaborate on that? Test it with a friend at point blanck, one full clip emptied? Would be interesting if it was so.
It's been implied that MAXes have a base 80% small arms resistance, and increasing it 5% would actually reduce incoming damage by 25%. If that's true, then this is a case of giving bizarrely specific info while completely obscuring other info. If they told us it was 80% base it'd be obvious to anyone with a high school level of education, or they could just tell us it was 5/10/15/20/25% and only actually increment it 1/2/3/4/5 because mathmatically it'd be the same thing. If it's not true then yeah it's the dumbest **** ever.
must be a typo on the tool tip, like the extended Mag saying 50% when it adds 5 to the burster? I cant believe it is only 1% although it needs testing anyone have 2k certs they want to sacrifice?
why do we need to test this spending 2k+ certs. why can't soe make proper descriptions. why are we still in beta.
Wording like this would NOT surprise me. The tooltip for the Prowlers siege mode read for the longest time "increases deploy mode reload speed by 300% (at max rank)" to many they thought this meant you would be shooting 300% faster - 4 volleys in the time you used to shoot one - in actuality it meant that the reload speed buff (12%) was tripled (to 48%). Meaning you were shooting 1.5 volleys in the time you used to shoot one. They ended up fixing the tooltip for launch. Likewise a 25% damage reduction seems more in line with SOE's suggested "20% Power Gap" between seasoned and fresh players.
it IS not good. it MIGHT be. there was no word of a confirm on this. just guesses. as far as I've been reading on this forum anyway.
There are a number of users who re-post the 80% small arms resistance as fact. I've been unsuccessfully searching for actual proof of this statistic. Does anyone have data to back it up?
Irritates me that they still release games with stat modifiers and neglect to post what that modifier is changing so we can at least see if it is good.
50% base resist to smallarms fire and 90% with composite armor should do the trik. In ps1 they were bulletproof and u had to get bullets to kill them or AV weapon to quick dispatch em
