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.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

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
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 354	Posted - 2014.02.10 02:14:00 - [2] - Quote +1
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1245	Posted - 2014.02.10 04:11:00 - [3] - Quote I like this idea a lot but think that CCP should also create modules that affect vehicle detection distance making them harder to detect. Fun > Realism
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 501	Posted - 2014.02.10 04:13:00 - [4] - 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
Outer Raven WarRavens League of Infamy 179	Posted - 2014.02.12 04:05:00 - [5] - Quote Ya vehicles have both power and stealth currently. How many times have you flown in a dropship to drop spawn points and seen another dropship near by and wonder if it was friendly or enemy since they don't show alliance until scan or seen by someone on the ground. The best example of vehicle stealth was a match where I was sniping from the enemies red line on a mountain. Suddenly I heard rail turret fire above me but on my mini map it didn't show where the vehicle was. So I lowered my scope and looked up and bearly turned left to see the front end of an enemy rail tank no more than on step away a little higher on the mountain I was on. He apparently didn't see me either but it certainly gave me a start since he was well within me radar range or range is general is poo either or. ___-öGûêGûêGêƒ________________ GûêGûêGûêGòÜGûêa»½GòáGûê Gûæ Gûæ Gûæ Gûæ Gûæ Gûæ Gûæ GûÆ PEW ¯¯GùÑGò¥GûêGûêGùñ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Magnus Amadeuss Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 695	Posted - 2014.04.07 04:49:00 - [6] - Quote I like this. It feels right. Fixing swarms
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation 515	Posted - 2014.04.07 09:40:00 - [7] - Quote 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. I agree, stealth HAV are silly. Even 30m for lavs and 50 for Havs would be better than current "invisible if you don't look".
Sound vvave Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.04.07 17:52:00 - [8] - Quote +1 i agree with this entirely im a vehicle player (proto tanks and drop ships) this would be very useful to both infantry and vehicles \ all to many times has my proto tank or dropship been rammed by re lavs or 39k drop ships because i literally cant see them more then 10 meter's away it would also require more team work with havs to get the jump on you'r enemies
bogeyman m Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 221	Posted - 2014.05.28 02:50:00 - [9] - Quote 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. This. Duct tape 2.0 - Have WD-40; will travel.
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2457	Posted - 2014.05.28 04:34:00 - [10] - Quote Why do you have the DS and ADS as two separate things?........................... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

MINA Longstrike 802	Posted - 2014.05.28 05:56:00 - [11] - Quote 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. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 1232	Posted - 2014.05.28 06:52:00 - [12] - 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
MINA Longstrike 803	Posted - 2014.05.28 10:10:00 - [13] - Quote Profile/precision doesn't matter, scan range does, i apologize for ewar being utterly awful but that in no way excuses your demands that all infantry should always be able to passive scan vehicles within a 70-120m range. In regards to 'avoidance' the vast majority of infantry see av as a chore - an unrewarding one at that - unless a vehicle is providing an insane level of hindrance to doing what you want to do the obvious logical choice is to avoid it, which everyone will do all the time now. It doesn't matter that most points are already indoors, elevated, surrounded by walls or obstructing objects already, no you want complete immunity from vehicles. All because a few mean tanks killed you. This 'suggestion' doesn't fix things, it exacerbates problems and makes things much, much worse. I'm not sure if its out of ignorance or simply spite but you have suggested something so destructive that if it were implemented might as well remove vehicles from the game. Have you ever tried to kill an infantry player determined to take cover behind a silo after they've noticed you while in a tank or dropship? It is not easy at all, you want to give this to everyone on the ground without exception. "But some tanks go 30-0" that takes insane amounts of effort and a lot of player skill it's easier to get k/d scores like that as an infantry player than it is as a vehicle. Your suggestion is bad. Oh, and you referenced the volume of a conversation in regards to the Db measurement, when the Db measurement in this case refers to an electronic measurement, so don't backpedal on 'noisy'. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 1233	Posted - 2014.05.28 10:51:00 - [14] - 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
MINA Longstrike 803	Posted - 2014.05.28 11:12:00 - [15] - Quote Vehicles give up slots for those modules and they don't catch everything, in fact most vehicles don't even fit them due to CPU restrictions and other modules outright being better. Infantry already can avoid vehicles and do it with incredible frequency, you want to give all infantry the passive scanning range of a caldari scout or 80% better. If you cannot see how this would affect the game in a negative manner you'd have to be dumb. It isn't trolling to tell you that this is outright **ing overpowered, and unnecessary HTFU and use your eyes. Don't create a false dichotomy, logical fallacies don't win arguments or prevent this from being one of the most damaging suggestions I've ever seen. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Spartan MK420 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 466	Posted - 2014.05.28 11:15:00 - [16] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Its incredibly ironic that you'd call me the troll here, when you wont even acknowledge how spiteful of an idea this is. Vehicles give up slots for those modules and they don't catch everything, in fact most vehicles don't even fit them due to CPU restrictions and other modules outright being better. Infantry already can avoid vehicles and do it with incredible frequency, you want to give all infantry the passive scanning range of a caldari scout or 80% better. If you cannot see how this would affect the game in a negative manner you'd have to be dumb. It isn't trolling to tell you that this is outright ****ing overpowered, and unnecessary HTFU and use your eyes. Don't create a false dichotomy, logical fallacies don't win arguments or prevent this from being one of the most damaging suggestions I've ever seen. you must not have seen my thread yet. :p Support Balancing scouts
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood Dirt Nap Squad. 497	Posted - 2014.05.28 12:50:00 - [17] - Quote In summation: MINA Longstrike wrote: MY NIGH-INVINCIBLE MOBILE MURDER FORTRESS MUST ALSO REMAIN AS STEALTHY AS A SOFT BREEZE, UNTIL I'M CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE CANNON-FODDER THAT MY IMPOTENT RAGE IS INESCAPABLE, LEST THE ROLE BECOME UTTERLY OBSOLETE.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]