No it is. Was d10... you needed to tune for clean splits or lose efficacy. Now d100... "base range metric" And the "specialization range metric" also d100 101-200 AND... EVERY stat point counts.

I think you are overthinking what I said. Bigger number good, lower number bad, this isn't changing.

Nope, you tried to couch... Not the same, it is changing. And show me a game that doesn't use positive metric integers to indicate for progression. More number typically means more benefit, except in the current paradigm. 81 isn't better than 80 in this system. Through 9 points... are equal. 80 = 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89. So, [i]"Bigger number good, lower number bad...."[/i] Incorrect. And it IS changing. 😇 👍💠

[quote]Nope, you tried to couch...[/quote] What does that mean? [quote]So, [i]"Bigger number good, lower number bad...."[/i] Incorrect.[/quote] So you are saying that currently having a value of 100 is not better than having a stat value of 90. Because the point I was making is that the current system still has higher value stats mean more than lower value stats. The CONCEPT itself is not changing, how the CONCEPT is being implemented is. You are overthinking a basic statement for reasons I don't know why because you don't use full and coherent sentences.

Tried to be lazy and walk it back. IS 89 better than 80? Is 101 better than 100? [i]"Bigger number good, lower number bad, this isn't changing".[/i] Wrong. 😘

What part of what I said was lazy I was quite clear in what I meant and still stand by the fact that higher stat values give better effects then low stat values. You say that 88 isnt better than 89 for a stat which is true, but neglect that 89 is worse than 90. So what part of what I said is wrong? Since just because the benefit thresholds are getting removed doesn't change the core design of the stat system. Hence why I said you are overthinking about what I wrote.

They do not, as I gave examples... When there is an example proving your statement false... That means it's false. [i]"Bigger number good, lower number bad, this isn't changing".[/i] This is false... every point: [i]Bigger number good...[/i] Not always, incorrect... often incorrect, for 9 points of every tier and above 100. [i]Lower number bad, [/i] Incorrect, for 9 points every tier In fact, 90 is absolutely better than 99 - as another example. [i]this isn't changing[/i] It is, clearly... lol. 😇👍💠

The point you are focused on is not what I am referring to. For what I am referring to to be false a stat of 0 would have to give more benefit than a stat of 100, this would be a case of the smaller number giving bigger benefits. In reality a stat of 100 gives more benefits than a stat of 0, which is not changing with the new system. If a stat of 90 and a stat of 99 give the same value neither is better than the other which. Using this as your point doesn't go against what I'm saying. The thing that is changing is the point thresholds needed to see an increase in benefits going from 10 stat points to 1 stat points. The core point of the system being that more stats gives more benefits stays the same. Hence, you are overthinking a very simple statement. Nothing is proven false as I made an observation in regards to a claim that the new system would be simpler than the current one (which can't really be determined at this time).

I'm focusing on your attempt to minimize your false statements. Every point WAS false. Doesn't matter if you cherry pick. Wrong.

How is a stat of 100 being better than a stat of 0 false? Please how that could be false as what I wrote can't be completely false if that's not false, and it isn't false because the goal for armor stats is to get as many as close to 100 as possible.

Because it's a fallacy. Rhetorical manipulation, denial of the antecedent. Called a "propositional fallacy".

You say my statement is "false because it's is false" yet you never actually proved that lower value stats grant more benefits than higher value stats. As you put it [quote]More number typically means more benefit, except in the current paradigm. 81 isn't better than 80 in this system. Through 9 points... are equal. 80 = 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89. So, [i]"Bigger number good, lower number bad...."[/i] Incorrect.[/quote] Your point being that a stat of 80 and 89 offering the same benefit therefore I must be wrong. Yet in this game where we as players can also get stat benefits from more than just armor that isn't true. Artifice armor slots grant three stat points that can be used to get any stat value ending in 7 to the next benefit threshold. This makes a stat of 87 more beneficial than a stat of 80 as you only need to spend one artifice slot for a stat of 87 to get that stat to the next threshold vs using 4 for a stat of 80. Not to mention subclass buffs, fragments, and gun buffs that improve stat values of which having higher stat values increases the benefit of use when paired with them. What a fallacy in your own argument in trying to disprove mine. So please prove me wrong with facts, all you have to do is provided evidence that a lower stat value provides more benefit than a higher value. Since you say my argument is a fallacy, but don't even use fully articulated sentences with evidence to try and disprove my point. It should be easy since you think my statements are full of holes or would you rather end this tangent that has little to do with the OP.

The logical antecedent of your premise is false. Therefore, it's all false. I provided the facts. [i]"How is a stat of 100 being better than a stat of 0 false?"[/i] A disingenuous mischaracterization. Illogical and erroneous to the root "antecedent". [i]"Bigger number good, lower number bad, this isn't changing".[/i] Every declaration is false... examples above.

Yeah and that has nothing to do with making 91 better than 90. Its simpler and so is several things they’re doing for newbs. Lol you’re arguing about things that will benefit you too. No wasted stat points anymore. New changes continue to be a win.