|
Moligant | Tue 15-Oct-13 01:44 PM |
Member since 30th Dec 2010
327 posts
| |
|
#52229, "Aerial Oppressor"
|
Is this like a weaker version of Trapping? Weight of weapon effects damage? If its like trapping, does it stack with trapping? Couldn't find any info on this, wondering if it is worth getting.
|
|
|
|
|
Daevryn | Tue 15-Oct-13 04:56 PM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#52231, "RE: Aerial Oppressor"
In response to Reply #0
|
>Is this like a weaker version of Trapping? Weight of weapon >effects damage?
Yes, that's about correct. If you think of it that way you'll generally draw the right conclusions.
>If its like trapping, does it stack with >trapping?
It does, but there are some diminishing returns. For example (all totally made up numbers) if in a given situation Trapping alone would give you 50 damage and AO alone would give you 20 damage, the two together might give you 60 damage.
That being said, if you're picking trapping and you're already committing to that kind of gearing strategy you might as well pick up AO too.
|
|
|
|
  |
Frequentplayer | Tue 15-Oct-13 11:00 PM |
Member since 31st Jul 2013
228 posts
| |
|
#52236, "Could you check to see if it's broken?"
In response to Reply #1
|
I saw no difference with my Cloud Ranger taking it.
Does it require heavy weapons?
Does it make your weapons harder to parry?
|
|
|
|
    |
Daevryn | Tue 15-Oct-13 11:04 PM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#52237, "RE: Could you check to see if it's broken?"
In response to Reply #2
|
It's not broken. Yes, it requires heavy weapons. It adds damage to every hit with them.
But if you're expecting an edge to turn mangles into devastates you're way overestimating it.
|
|
|
|
      |
Frequentplayer | Tue 15-Oct-13 11:17 PM |
Member since 31st Jul 2013
228 posts
| |
|
#52238, "Well that explains that. I was going light to avoid wea..."
In response to Reply #3
|
Does it have any affect on Parry?
|
|
|
|
        |
Daevryn | Wed 16-Oct-13 09:05 AM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#52242, "RE: Well that explains that. I was going light to avoid..."
In response to Reply #4
|
|
|
|