DUST Search - Purposed Active Scanner Adjustments

fragmentedhackslash wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

Sana Rayya wrote:

Changing the active scanner's precision/scan radius to be based on the suit's precision/radius is a bad idea. This is due to the disparity in the values obtainable through modules/skills across the different suit types.

A scanner that is marginally useful on suits without precision/range skills/modules would be super OP on suits that are fully proto in precision/range and stacked with the corresponding proto mods.

Conversely, a scanner that would be equivalent to the present scanners in the hands of a fully precision/range modded suit would be utterly useless on an unmodded suit.

Right now, scanning/dampening has a good balance. Scouts can dodge all but one scanner with minimal effort (202k SP and 1 module costing 15 or 18 CPU). Mediums can dodge all but one scanner with moderate effort (932k SP and 2 modules costing 66 CPU). The one scanner that scans them all is a piece of crap (costs 18 PG, has a 5 second scan time and 5 second paint time, and you must wait 33 seconds between consecutive scans, so you only have data for 30% of the game). If this scanner was OP then you'd run into it a whole lot more, yet I nearly never see it in game. It might as well not even exist, and I for one would support its removal if only to stop QQ.

As Ryme said, if it ain't broke...

It's broke.

We have 69 suits and under a full line up permise 84 . Based on the current slot assignment so far provided by existing suits even at 82 suits only 1 Suit would be capable of beating the scanner. Of the 84 suits at minimal 68 of them can fit the scanner. As of now this is the ONLY module with this type of clear cut disparity, every other module and equipment in the game can and has been defeated by every other suit and platform you can use it on.

Cloaking by all means MUST not be the sole counter but based on what I been hearing so far its not going to be because active scanners are the hard counter for cloaks not the other way around.

These changes would allow ANY suit to defeat an active scanner on the grounds the suit operator knows what the hell he's doing to avoid it. In turn the scan operator can beat any suit provided he knows what the hell he's doing.
Skills and module meta then becomes extra noise on the field and additional make things interesting once cloaks hit the field.

fix the suits then.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11399	Posted - 2013.12.25 12:02:00 - [1] - Quote On the grounds of no new content I purpose these changes. 1. Active Scanners will rely on suit or vehicle own natural sensors to find targets. Better the sensors the better it can find things. Lights having the best while heavies the worst. Vehicles are in a similar position with LAVs having the best with HAVs having the worst. Both strength and Range are accounted for. 1a. Fitting Suit Range Amplifiers and Suit Sensor Resolution Modules will enhance active scanner functions. 2. Active scanning player or vehicle will be revealed to the entire hostile team at 2x the range than he can detect at as though he himself had been scanned. 3. Active scanners drop in strength over distance, it is possible to create variants that have sweet spots (long range but nearsighted) or work around this concept. 4. Active scanners activate instantly instead of scanning for 5 seconds. This will prevent 360 scans. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11402	Posted - 2013.12.25 14:05:00 - [2] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: Do you mean "proposed"? Not to be a ** or anything, but if you mean "proposed", then the title is very misleading. Dictionary wrote:** pur-+pose -êp+Örp+Ös/Submit verbformal past tense: purposed; past participle: purposed 1. have as one's intention or objective. "God has allowed suffering, even purposed it" synonyms:intend, mean, aim, plan, design, have the intention; More Considering that was then and this is now. That is the previous proposal I have established. Thus I am willing to see what others have to say. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11403	Posted - 2013.12.25 14:14:00 - [3] - Quote As for the active scanner revealing the scanners position I have drawn inspiration from submarine warfare. Submarines use passive sensors most of the time to find other subs and is their ultimate primary means of sensing. The reason being is that if they used sonar every single passive sensor in the area picks them up with high amounts of clarity. Surface ships especially sub hunters which cannot hide like a sub have nothing to lose giving their position away so its of little risk to them to do so. This will play a bit more into the cloak and counter dagger game play if this is done this way. A scout not wanting to be seen should be relying on native passive sensors. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11404	Posted - 2013.12.25 14:42:00 - [4] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: Still don't like the idea of punishing someone for using an active scanner when they have an awesome in game counter already. So when are we getting cloaking modules and will they be available for vehicles? I'd like one for my dropship so I have a way to deal with the forge/railgun players. Using an active scanner is a massive powerup. There needs to be a drawback. And cloaking is non-factor different game play then. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11404	Posted - 2013.12.25 14:43:00 - [5] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: A scout not wanting to be seen should be relying on native passive sensors. . What's wrong with relying on profile dampeners, cover and flanking? The best thing about active scanners is knowing what's around you and determining the strength of your opposition so you can plan your next move without to much of an issue. Now if you're going to make it broadcast your position then it nullifies almost all of the positives. No, not really. Go look up the history of submarine warfare and the use of sonar. Plays fully into the risk vs reward or creating risk for a reward. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11404	Posted - 2013.12.25 14:49:00 - [6] - Quote Yoma Carrim wrote: Blaze Ashra wrote: Still don't like the idea of punishing someone for using an active scanner when they have an awesome in game counter already. So when are we getting cloaking modules and will they be available for vehicles? I'd like one for my dropship so I have a way to deal with the forge/railgun players. Oh spec ops dropships yes please (give them a role bonus to reduce a vehicle cloak module's CPU and PG cost) Unfortunately this is barring new content. If new content was included there be a host of other things including covert stuff and cloaks and their drawbacks. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11407	Posted - 2013.12.25 14:59:00 - [7] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: If "1", then better scanners should last for longer times...since the only reason to have better scanners right now is the dB level. Longer times shouldn't just be a "variant" Also, better scanners should have a larger scan radius and degree because of 3 and 4 I agree brining in attributes to scanners including range, resolution, strength, and duration and possibly falloff and optimal ranges as well. Another factor I wouldn't mind added is a scan 'frequency' or a range that a scanner is expert at for example you picked up a scanner that is specifically designed to find equipment. While it may find scouts that dip their signature way too low. It should be mostly useful in finding hostile equipment mostly. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11407	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:13:00 - [8] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: No, not really. Go look up the history of submarine warfare and the use of sonar. Plays fully into the risk vs reward or creating risk for a reward. Okay I read this but you still didn't answer the question. How can we counter the drawback you're proposing with current in game content and why should it not be dependent on your decibel level? Seriously I don't want my skills into profile dampening, active scanners and vehicle electronics to be wasted. Read 5 on the OP. Passive sensors should get a buff with this considering the proposals will refactor everything related to sensors and how they detect things. Scouts should be getting decent pair of eyes on the back of their heads once skilled. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11407	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:15:00 - [9] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Another factor I wouldn't mind added is a scan 'frequency' or a range that a scanner is expert at for example you picked up a scanner that is specifically designed to find equipment. While it may find scouts that dip their signature way too low. It should be mostly useful in finding hostile equipment mostly. Why not just make a change to equipment that makes it so that you need to hit a certain dB level to find them? For instance having prototype equipment at 28dB to make it much harder to find a well placed uplink. Then when they make the adjustment to equipment spam, placement of high level equipment would actaully be rewarded instead of just spamming as much as possible. That could work as well. or a variant of the equipment added. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11407	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:16:00 - [10] - Quote Sana Rayya wrote: Oh look, another thread made by people unwilling to use profile dampeners. Oh look someone who doesn't know that I runs a stealth assault suit. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked

Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11408	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:24:00 - [11] - Quote Grimmiers wrote: I've requested a few of these changes including the drop off based on range and some fix to the spin scanning. My idea to reduce the spinning was to make it less accurate the more it was rotated. I thought of that then I thought about the limitations of the game. If it is possible where 'spinning' just gives you crappy results then yeah I'd go for it. Or that maybe the longer you spray the longer it stays pinged. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11408	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:32:00 - [12] - Quote Krom Ganesh wrote: Cooldown time needs a major increase. Allowing people to spam the scanner is the most glaring flaw of the scanner. Only making a few suits truly effective with it does not address this issue, just limits the pool of people who can abuse it. I disagree the longer cooldown is countered by just more bodies equipped with it. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11411	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:40:00 - [13] - Quote fragmentedhackslash wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Blaze Ashra wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: A scout not wanting to be seen should be relying on native passive sensors. . What's wrong with relying on profile dampeners, cover and flanking? The best thing about active scanners is knowing what's around you and determining the strength of your opposition so you can plan your next move without to much of an issue. Now if you're going to make it broadcast your position then it nullifies almost all of the positives. No, not really. Go look up the history of submarine warfare and the use of sonar. Plays fully into the risk vs reward or creating risk for a reward. This is why we can't have nice things. Hey WW1 started with hand waving to the other pilot as you flew over the battlefield. WW1 Ended with people getting shot down because someone decided they needed to bring a pistol in the air with them. Which lead to a whole assortment of trouble. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11413	Posted - 2013.12.25 16:12:00 - [14] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: So this buff to passive scan range how much do you want it to be? Scouts already had 20 meters for a bit but they reduced it to 15. Large and effective enough that a sensored up scout can play around a small socket and know where most people are in it. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11430	Posted - 2013.12.26 20:51:00 - [15] - Quote Sana Rayya wrote: Changing the active scanner's precision/scan radius to be based on the suit's precision/radius is a bad idea. This is due to the disparity in the values obtainable through modules/skills across the different suit types. A scanner that is marginally useful on suits without precision/range skills/modules would be super OP on suits that are fully proto in precision/range and stacked with the corresponding proto mods. Conversely, a scanner that would be equivalent to the present scanners in the hands of a fully precision/range modded suit would be utterly useless on an unmodded suit. Right now, scanning/dampening has a good balance. Scouts can dodge all but one scanner with minimal effort (202k SP and 1 module costing 15 or 18 CPU). Mediums can dodge all but one scanner with moderate effort (932k SP and 2 modules costing 66 CPU). The one scanner that scans them all is a piece of crap (costs 18 PG, has a 5 second scan time and 5 second paint time, and you must wait 33 seconds between consecutive scans, so you only have data for 30% of the game). If this scanner was OP then you'd run into it a whole lot more, yet I nearly never see it in game. It might as well not even exist, and I for one would support its removal if only to stop QQ. As Ryme said, if it ain't broke... It's broke. We have 69 suits and under a full line up permise 84 . Based on the current slot assignment so far provided by existing suits even at 82 suits only 1 Suit would be capable of beating the scanner. Of the 84 suits at minimal 68 of them can fit the scanner. As of now this is the ONLY module with this type of clear cut disparity, every other module and equipment in the game can and has been defeated by every other suit and platform you can use it on. Cloaking by all means MUST not be the sole counter but based on what I been hearing so far its not going to be because active scanners are the hard counter for cloaks not the other way around. These changes would allow ANY suit to defeat an active scanner on the grounds the suit operator knows what the hell he's doing to avoid it. In turn the scan operator can beat any suit provided he knows what the hell he's doing. Skills and module meta then becomes extra noise on the field and additional make things interesting once cloaks hit the field. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11430	Posted - 2013.12.26 22:07:00 - [16] - Quote fragmentedhackslash wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Sana Rayya wrote: Changing the active scanner's precision/scan radius to be based on the suit's precision/radius is a bad idea. This is due to the disparity in the values obtainable through modules/skills across the different suit types. A scanner that is marginally useful on suits without precision/range skills/modules would be super OP on suits that are fully proto in precision/range and stacked with the corresponding proto mods. Conversely, a scanner that would be equivalent to the present scanners in the hands of a fully precision/range modded suit would be utterly useless on an unmodded suit. Right now, scanning/dampening has a good balance. Scouts can dodge all but one scanner with minimal effort (202k SP and 1 module costing 15 or 18 CPU). Mediums can dodge all but one scanner with moderate effort (932k SP and 2 modules costing 66 CPU). The one scanner that scans them all is a piece of crap (costs 18 PG, has a 5 second scan time and 5 second paint time, and you must wait 33 seconds between consecutive scans, so you only have data for 30% of the game). If this scanner was OP then you'd run into it a whole lot more, yet I nearly never see it in game. It might as well not even exist, and I for one would support its removal if only to stop QQ. As Ryme said, if it ain't broke... It's broke. We have 69 suits and under a full line up permise 84 . Based on the current slot assignment so far provided by existing suits even at 82 suits only 1 Suit would be capable of beating the scanner. Of the 84 suits at minimal 68 of them can fit the scanner. As of now this is the ONLY module with this type of clear cut disparity, every other module and equipment in the game can and has been defeated by every other suit and platform you can use it on. Cloaking by all means MUST not be the sole counter but based on what I been hearing so far its not going to be because active scanners are the hard counter for cloaks not the other way around. These changes would allow ANY suit to defeat an active scanner on the grounds the suit operator knows what the hell he's doing to avoid it. In turn the scan operator can beat any suit provided he knows what the hell he's doing. Skills and module meta then becomes extra noise on the field and additional make things interesting once cloaks hit the field. fix the suits then. okay deletes GK. 0 1/4 slot layout to 2.3. Fix'ed CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11437	Posted - 2013.12.27 05:54:00 - [17] - Quote Updated the OP wording a bit. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11437	Posted - 2013.12.27 05:59:00 - [18] - Quote Cass Caul wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: okay deletes GK. 0 1/4 slot layout to 2.3. Fix'ed I know this is sarcasm, but the proto scout suit really needs to have 6 slots like it used to. gk.0 with 2H/4L and mk.0 with the original vk.0's 3H/3L Chances are though the gallente gk 0 will likely remain one of the stealth suits as its not a characteristic of either caldari nor amarr both have been traditionally noisy as hell. Amarr are most likely to have 3 and 3 caldari 4 and 2 if they go up to 6 slots if 5 is kept then Amarr is likely to have two equipment slots and 2/3 slot layout, and caldari 4 and 1 slot. Now this is also speculation on my own end about the possible slot layouts and I haven't been able to translate the SDE on my end. This means that players will be forced to cross train their skill plans into a suit they don't or may not like just to defeat the best prototype scan meaning even with racial equality of all suits only 1 will still remain being able to defeat the scanner. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked