Full Auto + BS Attack (SF Mode)

I had a similar experience with a top ITS (US) player attempting to target a camo marker with a hacking attack, then going as far as calling a TO to confirm the rules. High participation / performance in ITS events should not be taken as rules knowledge, or opinion validity.

 

Hmm interesting.
I am pretty disappointed that it wont stack with SF anymore but I guess I was using. I am pretty bad at judging the value of any given unit. I tend to get overwhelmed by possibilities and what if situations. This was however a common tactic I used so this is definitely a nerf for me but it is still the best heavy gunfighter imo.

 

All things considered I do not believe for single second that the stack on SF was “not intended”. Look at the design on the Mk. 12 profile. Having an absurd loadout that gave him 3 different weapons/ammo to suppress with, as well as a 360 visor, to make sure nobody could get around him while going out of their way to clarify that 1 of the levels doesn’t work in ARO while the other does. Sorry, not buying it. If there was ever a profile that screamed ‘put me in suppression!’ It was the Mk. 12.

I mean, sure, they may have regretted it or changed their minds but “not intended”? Naw man, this was literally the first thing everyone talked about doing and find it baffling that CB just now have figured that out. Also, the SF stacking was “not intended” because of what exactly? Unhealthy design? Does CB consider Fatality level 2 a healthy design? Legit curious.

 

Yup - that's what I meant when talking about Kriza being sold on a promiss of SF+Full-Auto+Cover. Community was masturbating hard to it and CB never demented it. If it was not intended this would have been demented like ASAP.

 

Look, this is a game. Just because something once was intended doesn't mean that the devs are necessarily happy with how it turned out once the general community got a hold of it and used it.
There's also the possibility that they're making another unit where it becomes apparent that they have to future-proof it.

 

Sure thing - totally agree on this one. This is exactly what brings the confussion and overreaction to this 'change'. It's not about Kriza per se. It's not even about the rule. It's about fail in communicating the issue. Devs should write a note like 'We will be changing this and other rules soon to improove the game, here's how it now works'. Usually worlds like 'rebalancing for the purpose of better experience' are being thrown into this kind of talk. Certainly not 'This wasn't intended' cough bullshiut cough. I think that everything that transpired here revolves around crappy way this rule change was communicated to us.

 

As much as I agree with this, one could also make a very convincing argument that it's simply a language issue from CB, given their history. Like, it could also mean that Hell Louis meant "not intended", as in "not intended to be that strong". Considering their limited english capacity I've experienced with them over the years, this could very well be the case and I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

Comments will be taken into consideration, I feel I need to point out the wording in the answer has changed already in feedback to the confusion it created.

 

So in the end all this fuss brough something good into the game. The way the answer looks now is totally acceptable. Simple yes/no type - we are used to actually.

 

Well, the implication would be that making the Kriza overpowered out the gate drove sales, and once the initial rush died down one could nerf it down to make "design space" for the next piece that needed to be pushed. GW does this, PP does this, wouldn't he surprised if CB did this.