DUST Search - [suggestion] vehicles and scan radius

MINA Longstrike wrote:

Brokerib wrote:

As vehicles of all sorts are inherently 'noisier' that dropsuits, I would suggest that they be visible on passive scan at greater distances. It seems unbelievable that my scout, that can pick up a light suit (45dB, or the sound of a quiet conversation) at 16m, is unable to pick up a tank (~200dB) until it is within the same range.

Visibility should be based on the vehicle type (light/medium/heavy), and reducible through modules (for a stealth LAV for instance).

Suggested ranges for different vehicle types.
LAV: detectable at 70m
MAV: detectable at 90m
HAV: detectable at 120m (larger than the mini-map radius)
DS/ADS: detectable at 100m (vertical distance would need to be taken into account)

This would assist infantry with avoidance and counter of vehicles, within the current meta.

No. DB rating does not merely refer to sound.

Also, STOP RELYING ON YOUR PASSIVE SCANS FOR ****ING EVERYTHING. You want to 'see' a vehicle? find a safe spot and pull up the tactical map or actually ****ing look around and use your goddamned eyes. This thread screams "I want to have adequate time to hide like a ****ing coward any time a vehicle is around ever" at 100m in a dropship you haven't even RENDERED, and at 75m you are so small you can only be seen if you are moving.

Yes getting killed by vehicles with zero recourse is frustrating and I can sympathize as its not possible for my vehicle oriented character to fight 5 tanks or 5 dropships solo even with the abysmal vehicle TTK's, but that does not mean the vehicle role needs to be ripped to pieces by terrible ideas.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 493	Posted - 2014.02.10 01:43:00 - [1] - Quote As vehicles of all sorts are inherently 'noisier' that dropsuits, I would suggest that they be visible on passive scan at greater distances. It seems unbelievable that my scout, that can pick up a light suit (45dB, or the sound of a quiet conversation) at 16m, is unable to pick up a tank (~200dB) until it is within the same range. Visibility should be based on the vehicle type (light/medium/heavy), and reducible through modules (for a stealth LAV for instance). Suggested ranges for different vehicle types. LAV: detectable at 70m MAV: detectable at 90m HAV: detectable at 120m (larger than the mini-map radius) DS/ADS: detectable at 100m (vertical distance would need to be taken into account) This would assist infantry with avoidance and counter of vehicles, within the current meta. Knowledge is power
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 501	Posted - 2014.02.10 04:13:00 - [2] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: I like this idea a lot but think that CCP should also create modules that affect vehicle detection distance making them harder to detect. Agreed, thats why I mentioned dampening modules in the second paragraph Knowledge is power
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 1232	Posted - 2014.05.28 06:52:00 - [3] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Brokerib wrote: As vehicles of all sorts are inherently 'noisier' that dropsuits, I would suggest that they be visible on passive scan at greater distances. It seems unbelievable that my scout, that can pick up a light suit (45dB, or the sound of a quiet conversation) at 16m, is unable to pick up a tank (~200dB) until it is within the same range. Visibility should be based on the vehicle type (light/medium/heavy), and reducible through modules (for a stealth LAV for instance). Suggested ranges for different vehicle types. LAV: detectable at 70m MAV: detectable at 90m HAV: detectable at 120m (larger than the mini-map radius) DS/ADS: detectable at 100m (vertical distance would need to be taken into account) This would assist infantry with avoidance and counter of vehicles, within the current meta. No. DB rating does not merely refer to sound. Also, STOP RELYING ON YOUR PASSIVE SCANS FOR **ING EVERYTHING. You want to 'see' a vehicle? find a safe spot and pull up the tactical map or actually ing look around and use your goddamned eyes. This thread screams "I want to have adequate time to hide like a **ing coward any time a vehicle is around ever" at 100m in a dropship you haven't even RENDERED, and at 75m you are so small you can only be seen if you are moving. Yes getting killed by vehicles with zero recourse is frustrating and I can sympathize as its not possible for my vehicle oriented character to fight 5 tanks or 5 dropships solo even with the abysmal vehicle TTK's, but that does not mean the vehicle role needs to be ripped to pieces by terrible ideas. You'll notice that 'noisier' is in quotes. That's because I was also refering to noise in the electromagnetic sense, not strictly the auditory sense. The examples were for illustrative purposes. But in either case, a tank has a significantly larger profile than a person, and it would make sense for that to be visible over a larger area. Passive vision gives infantry an option for avoidance, which should be their main defence against vehicles if they are not equiped with AV. They certainly can't tank a tank. So yes, I am looking to have adequate time to hide, as long as I'm paying attention. Should I instead be standing in the open shooting them with light arms until they kill me? If my choice is between being a coward and living to hack an objective, and being an idiot, I'll be a coward thanks. Knowledge is power
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 1233	Posted - 2014.05.28 10:51:00 - [4] - Quote But vehicles having modules that allow them to scan in a 100m radius is fine? Because unlimited vehicle visibility is in no way a crutch... You seem to be suggesting that infantry being able avoid vehicles would break the game, and that it being difficult for vehicle to kill infantry who are aware and using cover is an issue. Presumably because killing infantry should be easy for vehicles? Conversation done, I don't entertain trolls. Knowledge is power