My issue with the current random perks is that is contrary to what they are inscribed as, “innate abilities”. If they are truly innate abilities, why then would a recruit with heavy/berserker skills be trained as an infiltrator. This breaks my suspension of disbelief. Call them something different than innate abilities and I suppose I can live with the randomness of them.
1 Like
Thank you for the very good explanation. Of course you are right. Many things speak for it. If we calculate everything down to the bare essentials, what remains? We need the buffs to speed up the player a bit. I really don’t want to invest more than 1h for a map. For a fast progress we need the buffs and perks. It is about " moving forward ". If everything feels the same, why do I need the Perks? Just to carry weapons? I know, I’m repeating myself.
Because Synedrion doesn’t have heavy/berserker training techniques so he went to be infiltrator. 
And to explain why for example infiltator with assault perks isn’t assault? Well, maybe training in Synedrion wasn’t focusing on the best traits of soldier, but just trained for the class which was needed at the moment?
Back to the topic. I understand that limiting possibilities can be looking as ruining player experience, but some combinations had to be changed to eliminate overpowered exploits which changed purpose of many weapons or classes. In my opinion each perk should have some advantage and disadvantage to create diverse soldiers not to just boost them.
I wanted to paste my proposition to alter perks, but that would be pointless as developers definitely have their own vision and my personal view is quite obsolete here.
4 Likes
Indirectly you pointed out what I mostly don’t like about the personal perks as they currently are. I can somewhat agree, we need something to improve as the enemy also improves and these personal perks give us something to hold the pace. But they are randomly distributed and some soldiers get nice perk combinations, others get useless combinations and some are getting somewhat in between. These perks randomly decide which of the soldier is a good one and which one is not so good. The own decision of the player how to go further comes on top but the base is often already done randomly. When these perks now mainly give us the possibility to improve then they should IMO never be randomly distributed. That is in my eyes anything but not the way it should be. I want to take care of all the advantages and disadvantages by myself, I want to build the best soldiers to fight the most dangerous threat of the world the way I like and not what some randomly and often also stupidly generated set of perks is given to me.
1 Like
Having to be within 3 meters to hit anything is not a weakness? Remember, speed took a major nerf.
Implies you had heavies in heavy armor. Heavy weapons have trouble hitting even in sniper armor, so what they had is the same as everyone else - speedy assault armor.
This. Make it a trainable perk, with a slots opening for SP.
That’s not what I meant, even if I would like to have the choice.
What I suggest is a bit more radical: Completely take away the damage buffs from the perks and put them direct on the weapons. This would make the perks less important and buff all the weapons basically.
1 Like
I would say it’s actually more like 1 or 2 tiles against enemies that have armor (because you want to go for the spot with less or no armor), so really it’s competing with melee. A little bit further off (at 4 - 8 tiles, for similar targets) it’s competing with ARs. So, at those ranges, what would you use: AR, melee or shotgun? Now, if we are talking no perks, I would say “it depends”, but with perks shotgun with old CQS simply outclassed all the other options because as the longest burst weapon for 2 AP it benefits the most from a buff that increases the damage of each pellet.
I always use heavies in heavy armor using heavy weapons, also before last patch. The advantage of heavy weapons is that for many enemies you don’t have to aim for a specific spot, because they pack a strong punch, so although their effective range (=accuracy) is lower, often you can engage at a longer range with a heavy weapon than with an assault rifle, which are more accurate but have to go for a specific spot.
Because accuracy in PP is range (they are completely interchangeable), when a player says that a weapon is not accurate enough it’s because they have different expectations as to their engagement range (that is, the range at which you can effectively engage enemies with them).
Many players complained that the engagement range for heavies fell below their expectations (one of the longests threads on this forum), most of the posters (me included) argued that the penalties from wearing heavy armor should be reduced. The devs listened and not only halved the penalty but added a new starting weapon with slightly higher accuracy than Hel II, buffed Hel II and slightly increased the accuracy of the Deceptor. If you want to raise the engagement range of your operatives wielding heavy weapons even more then you have Strongman and Cautious.
Btw, there was another change in Polaris: Mark for Death has been reworked to apply +50% to damage after armor. The description hasn’t been changed yet.
3 Likes
wow, much better for mark for death, nice.
I didn’t get to really test changes to heavies yet but they sound promising.
1 Like