DUST Search - A Simple Nerf to Scanners

Keri Starlight wrote:

Awry Barux wrote:

Keri Starlight wrote:

Vulpes Dolosus wrote:

This plus make the directional scans as designed (get rid of the spinning technique).

Not really, Multi-directional scanning is intended, since there are Scanner variants with a 5 seconds scanning time (prototype), the problem is that you can do a 360 in much less than 5 seconds.

So the longer lasting scanners have no purpose, since you can get the same in 1-2 seconds.

This is what's wrong about it.

The multi-directional scan just shouldn't actually apply the scan effect to everyone in the spin. The "ping" from the spin scan is fine, just not the 14-second paint time for the whole spin from the quantum one.

I agree with this.

Hey, you know what?

It would have much more sense to have just an instant "ping" if you pass your scanner quickly, but you need to keep the scanner on your target a little longer to actually paint them on the radar, so those 5-seconds scanners are finally useful, as you can do a very slow 360 and pick everything around you.

But you have to use that particular variant, which is not Quantum and the effect doesn't last that much!

Madness is the emergency exit. You can just step outside, and close the door on all those dreadful things that happened.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 7577	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:06:00 - [1] - Quote If someone manages to hide from your scan, it should simply read "no margin of error" Why you're told someone is there when you can't detect them confuses me at best Stories / Vids # 5
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 229	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:08:00 - [2] - Quote This plus make the directional scans as designed (get rid of the spinning technique). Dropship Specialist: AKA Clinically Insane
Sgt Kirk SyNergy Gaming EoN. 2776	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:11:00 - [3] - Quote I think the margin of error should come up if you have a certain db rating just barely below the scan level and have it not come up at all if you are well below the scan frequency. The newer the berry the dumber the juice.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 444	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:11:00 - [4] - Quote While i do enjoy watching the battlefield ballet, and the panicked attempts to narrow down my location, these changes would be welcome. I am apparently not the only fool
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 7577	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:14:00 - [5] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: I think the margin of error should come up if you have a certain db rating just barely below the scan level and have it not come up at all if you are well below the scan frequency. That sounds reasonable Stories / Vids # 5
Keri Starlight 0uter.Heaven Proficiency V. 2032	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:21:00 - [6] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: This plus make the directional scans as designed (get rid of the spinning technique). Not really, Multi-directional scanning is intended, since there are Scanner variants with a 5 seconds scanning time (prototype), the problem is that you can do a 360 in much less than 5 seconds. So the longer lasting scanners have no purpose, since you can get the same in 1-2 seconds. This is what's wrong about it. -1.7 ranges: AR 42m -> 48m, TAR 65m -> 60m -Goodbye my love, Tac AR "I load my gun with love instead of bullets"
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 316	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:22:00 - [7] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: I think the margin of error should come up if you have a certain db rating just barely below the scan level and have it not come up at all if you are well below the scan frequency. This. For example, if someone can hide from ADV scanners, STD scanners should get no margin of error, and so on with proto vs adv.
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 316	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:23:00 - [8] - Quote Keri Starlight wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: This plus make the directional scans as designed (get rid of the spinning technique). Not really, Multi-directional scanning is intended, since there are Scanner variants with a 5 seconds scanning time (prototype), the problem is that you can do a 360 in much less than 5 seconds. So the longer lasting scanners have no purpose, since you can get the same in 1-2 seconds. This is what's wrong about it. The multi-directional scan just shouldn't actually apply the scan effect to everyone in the spin. The "ping" from the spin scan is fine, just not the 14-second paint time for the whole spin from the quantum one.
Aisha Ctarl PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 1743	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:25:00 - [9] - Quote I wondered about this as well. It does not make sense to get a "Some Margin of Error" message because that would mean the scanner detected the enemy but couldn't fully lock down the signal which should mean they highlight on the radar. The only time "Some Margin of Error" should appear is if we had signal spoofing or signal scrambling modules. Go forth, conquer in my Name, and reclaim that which I have given." - The Scriptures, Book of Reclaiming
Ander Thedas Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 17	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:31:00 - [10] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: If someone manages to hide from your scan, it should simply read "no margin of error" Why you're told someone is there when you can't detect them confuses me at best I think the best possible way to handle this would be with an ewar item that CREATES margin of error in scans. And maybe generates false enemy chevrons. So that way you're not always sure if your margin of error is accurate or the enemy messing up your scanning. Would very much fix the problem in an elegant way and maintains the information/counter information flow of the battlefield, ultimately leading to a much richer and complex environment.

Keri Starlight 0uter.Heaven Proficiency V. 2032	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:31:00 - [11] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Keri Starlight wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: This plus make the directional scans as designed (get rid of the spinning technique). Not really, Multi-directional scanning is intended, since there are Scanner variants with a 5 seconds scanning time (prototype), the problem is that you can do a 360 in much less than 5 seconds. So the longer lasting scanners have no purpose, since you can get the same in 1-2 seconds. This is what's wrong about it. The multi-directional scan just shouldn't actually apply the scan effect to everyone in the spin. The "ping" from the spin scan is fine, just not the 14-second paint time for the whole spin from the quantum one. I agree with this. Hey, you know what? It would have much more sense to have just an instant "ping" if you pass your scanner quickly, but you need to keep the scanner on your target a little longer to actually paint them on the radar, so those 5-seconds scanners are finally useful, as you can do a very slow 360 and pick everything around you. But you have to use that particular variant, which is not Quantum and the effect doesn't last that much! -1.7 ranges: AR 42m -> 48m, TAR 65m -> 60m -Goodbye my love, Tac AR "I load my gun with love instead of bullets"
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1269	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:35:00 - [12] - Quote Ander Thedas wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: If someone manages to hide from your scan, it should simply read "no margin of error" Why you're told someone is there when you can't detect them confuses me at best I think the best possible way to handle this would be with an ewar item that CREATES margin of error in scans. And maybe generates false enemy chevrons. So that way you're not always sure if your margin of error is accurate or the enemy messing up your scanning. Would very much fix the problem in an elegant way and maintains the information/counter information flow of the battlefield, ultimately leading to a much richer and complex environment. Adding new variables to fix broken ones, I love it "Please don't" GÿåForum warrior lvl.1Gÿå I Support SP Rollover, MAKE IT HAPPEN CCP !!!
Ander Thedas Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 18	Posted - 2013.11.14 20:12:00 - [13] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: Ander Thedas wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: If someone manages to hide from your scan, it should simply read "no margin of error" Why you're told someone is there when you can't detect them confuses me at best I think the best possible way to handle this would be with an ewar item that CREATES margin of error in scans. And maybe generates false enemy chevrons. So that way you're not always sure if your margin of error is accurate or the enemy messing up your scanning. Would very much fix the problem in an elegant way and maintains the information/counter information flow of the battlefield, ultimately leading to a much richer and complex environment. Adding new variables to fix broken ones, I love it Not sure if that's sarcasm but my gut's telling me it's not. Mostly because I do think this would be a fantastic idea.
Vyuru Bojo's School of the Trades 23	Posted - 2013.11.14 20:24:00 - [14] - Quote Or..... I don't know offhand, so let's say the scanner effect lasts for 5 seconds while it is scanning. In that 5 seconds, you get a message "No Margin of Error", "Some Margin of Error" etc etc You use these messages to narrow down where the enemy are. It takes you focusing the scanning cone on a enemy for, let's just say 2 seconds before you become locked in and are shown on radar If your scan profile is lower than can be picked up by the scanner, then the scanner would get the no margin of error message.
Sana Rayya WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL 386	Posted - 2013.11.14 20:41:00 - [15] - Quote The "ping and fade" mechanic already applies to spin scans. Try it some time. If you spin in a circle, not all enemies continue to pulse once your scan ends. You really need to a hold a scan in place, or slow your rotation (covering 180* instead of 360*) for the pulse effect to last reliably. As far as I know, since 1.5 hit, scanners do not get the "Some Margin of Error" message. I will try running advanced scanners again to see if this has changed since 1.6, but from testing in 1.5, the person scanning still receives the "No Margin of Error" message even if there is definitely a dampened enemy in the scanning cone.
sQuatch78 Ultramarine Corp 18	Posted - 2013.11.14 20:42:00 - [16] - Quote [/quote] I think the best possible way to handle this would be with an ewar item that CREATES margin of error in scans. And maybe generates false enemy chevrons. So that way you're not always sure if your margin of error is accurate or the enemy messing up your scanning. Would very much fix the problem in an elegant way and maintains the information/counter information flow of the battlefield, ultimately leading to a much richer and complex environment.[/quote] ^^ this is a great idea. Dust mimics real life passive eWar tech already. Think reduced signature profile for scout suits or skills like profile dampening similar to EM-absorbent paint or obscuring/covering of heat signatures by materials or shape (B-2 Spirit bomber) Anything for offensive eWar is missing, unless I totally missed it. Has great potential though for either deployed or equipped gear. - portable or deployable EMP generator that could burn out suit gear in general or eWar gear like damps or scanners. (Have it require a charge time, say 1-2 min or so, and you added an impromptu conflict spot on maps) - equipped gear creating false radar echos etc.. "We are the slayers of kings, the destroyers of worlds, bringers of ruination and death in all its forms." Cato Sicarius
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws WINMATAR. 622	Posted - 2013.11.14 20:57:00 - [17] - Quote I completely agree that the message should always read no margin of error giving the user a false sense of security and punishing him for his arrogance if he wishes to believe it. Plasma Cannon Advocate
mikegunnz The Solecism of Limitation 647	Posted - 2013.11.14 21:14:00 - [18] - Quote I'd like to humbly make a suggestion. Instead of trying to create some crazy new mechanics to nerft the currently OP scanner, let's look at others who have already implemented it and improved upon it. I direct you to the Battlefield series. In BF3, the MAV and TUGS are enemy scanners that are arguably OP. Dice realized this and modified the "scanner" system. In BF4, instead of making enemy scanning virtually infinite, they changed the scanning device to a ball that you throw on the ground. It scans the area for aprox 25sec (if I remember correctly) and then stops functioning. You have 3 that you can use and then you run out. This reduces the "scan spamming" (for lack of a better term) but keeps it as effective as ever, just not quite as OP. A simple and IMO most effective solution, would be to limit the number of times the scanner can be used. Give it 3-5 uses and then it runs out of batteries. It would make scanners still extremely effective, but you would need to use them tactfully and not just spam them.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 359	Posted - 2013.11.14 21:25:00 - [19] - Quote Keri Starlight wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: This plus make the directional scans as designed (get rid of the spinning technique). Not really, Multi-directional scanning is intended, since there are Scanner variants with a 5 seconds scanning time (prototype), the problem is that you can do a 360 in much less than 5 seconds. So the longer lasting scanners have no purpose, since you can get the same in 1-2 seconds. This is what's wrong about it. Err.. no the scanning was intended to release a wave that progresses outward, and only picks up suits under the wave at that point Like this: x = scan point + = user +------x +-----------x +-----------------x so if you turned around at this point x--------------------------+ You'd miss everyone inside the ---- So the intended effect is a spiral area of scan if you were to spin, not a full circle. I also think they should add a mechanic to the game, where standing still reduces your profile by a tad, crouching reduces it by a bit more. and running increases your profile a tad. That way you'd have a tactical method for those on the edge of a scan detection field (such as scout suits vs proto scanners) to allow them to be missed if cautious, but scanned if running about noisily. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Vyuru Bojo's School of the Trades 23	Posted - 2013.11.14 23:08:00 - [20] - Quote Quote: The "ping and fade" mechanic already applies to spin scans. Try it some time. Really? I run with the A-45 Quantum Active Scanner and I have never noticed this. Only time a red blip disappears is when they die or the effect times out... Gonna have to play with this some and see.

RedZer0 MK1 The Generals EoN. 99	Posted - 2013.11.14 23:30:00 - [21] - Quote Usually stealth mechanics have some variables in play, not here though. Nothing raises your profile (running, shooting), and no kind of action lowers it (crouching,standing still). It's all static, and static equals boring. The scanners need real variation themselves (quantum should have less range)
SILENTSAM 69 SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION 607	Posted - 2013.11.14 23:36:00 - [22] - Quote Ander Thedas wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: If someone manages to hide from your scan, it should simply read "no margin of error" Why you're told someone is there when you can't detect them confuses me at best I think the best possible way to handle this would be with an ewar item that CREATES margin of error in scans. And maybe generates false enemy chevrons. So that way you're not always sure if your margin of error is accurate or the enemy messing up your scanning. Would very much fix the problem in an elegant way and maintains the information/counter information flow of the battlefield, ultimately leading to a much richer and complex environment. Not a bad idea... When it comes to this discussion I would like to mention that a dampener is not a cloak. I imagine an actual cloak would not be picked up at all by a scan, and would read no margin of error.
DeadlyAztec11 Gallente Federation 2566	Posted - 2013.11.14 23:38:00 - [23] - Quote Keri Starlight wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Keri Starlight wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: This plus make the directional scans as designed (get rid of the spinning technique). Not really, Multi-directional scanning is intended, since there are Scanner variants with a 5 seconds scanning time (prototype), the problem is that you can do a 360 in much less than 5 seconds. So the longer lasting scanners have no purpose, since you can get the same in 1-2 seconds. This is what's wrong about it. The multi-directional scan just shouldn't actually apply the scan effect to everyone in the spin. The "ping" from the spin scan is fine, just not the 14-second paint time for the whole spin from the quantum one. I agree with this. Hey, you know what? It would have much more sense to have just an instant "ping" if you pass your scanner quickly, but you need to keep the scanner on your target a little longer to actually paint them on the radar, so those 5-seconds scanners are finally useful, as you can do a very slow 360 and pick everything around you. But you have to use that particular variant, which is not Quantum and the effect doesn't last that much! I agree with the wee lass! ... Oh heavens beg pardon! Where are my manners? ARGH! Madness is the emergency exit. You can just step outside, and close the door on all those dreadful things that happened.
Ander Thedas Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 20	Posted - 2013.11.14 23:40:00 - [24] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: Ander Thedas wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: If someone manages to hide from your scan, it should simply read "no margin of error" Why you're told someone is there when you can't detect them confuses me at best I think the best possible way to handle this would be with an ewar item that CREATES margin of error in scans. And maybe generates false enemy chevrons. So that way you're not always sure if your margin of error is accurate or the enemy messing up your scanning. Would very much fix the problem in an elegant way and maintains the information/counter information flow of the battlefield, ultimately leading to a much richer and complex environment. Not a bad idea... When it comes to this discussion I would like to mention that a dampener is not a cloak. I imagine an actual cloak would not be picked up at all by a scan, and would read no margin of error. That's a very valid point. I'd like want to add to this about another complaint I saw on the forums recently (they complain a lot) about scanners destroying the stealth possibilities in this game and say that this is completely untrue and in fact the opposite of what active scanners do. Active scanners right now are so useful and functional that they provided a completely necessary look at the battlefield for any squad. The information is so relied on that anyone who can slip below the threshold for scans are that much more dangerous due to players shifting their trust more and more over to the mini-map and red chevrons. Only the scanner knows about the margin of error, and chances are he won't report it to the squad 90% of the time because it's just additional noise in comms during a firefight, so the majority of the squad doesn't even readily know anything might be amiss. It allows the value of stealth to be greater than it used to be when players spent a lot more time checking corners and turning around to watch their sixes. Throwing the false "margin of error" would confuse the one holding the scanners. The false chevrons would confuse the rest of the squad. I don't think getting rid of the margin of error message does anything but eliminate an opportunity to increase stealth and counter informational gameplay.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page