DUST Search - Some Ewar Ideas

Roy Ventus wrote:

1. Yeah, that's I imagined would be the issue with the design I stated. If we could limit it to FW, PC, or general Null-Sec it would be decent. And if not that, we can simply make it so that the precision is very low in comparison to the scanner.

2. I imagined it would be the most "okay" one on the list.

3. Was worried about this the most. I wanted to say, a jammer that would only jam the enemy team but I don't know how well that fits in lore or if it's even possible.

4. Ehh. I don't really want a lot of counters for this. If you could simply scan it away with an active scanner, it would be useless. The decoy is actually best used when you have the enemy constantly scanning you. Really, if you wanted it gone you can destroy it. There's also the fact that players will eventually realize that certain profiles on the tacnet are actually fake.

5. Not to sound like I'm attacking you, but I don't think you do get it. Cloaks will be for running past the enemy to get to an area, sneaking around, breaching areas while at the expense of still being pretty visible up close. Camo is for being up close and personal with the enemy, penetrating their formations from the inside, and damn near "spying." In CQC, a cloak will still shine red on your reticule and those light refraction will definitely make you a threat.

Essentially, the cloak will let the enemy know there's a threat in his presence, but they can't see them while the camo will not tell the enemy's there's a threat in their presence but they can obviously "see you." The cloak will make players examine their environment while the camo will make players examine their ranks. You can imagine that it will get way more heavy in FW and PC.

6. Yeah I agree. Allowance of two with a high fitting cost as well as a short duration period. Give it a small amount of time where the players must take advantage.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dustbunny Durrr ReD or DeaD 124	Posted - 2014.03.03 19:12:00 - [1] - Quote 1: Interesting concept, but we want people to squad up in pub matches, as it helps create community and community retains players. Having equipment that penalizes players for being in a squad would make sure anyone not "up to par" (blueberries etc) won't be invited to your squad as they truly become a hinderance. 2: Seems legit. 3: You already have idiots teammates. You now want those idiot teammates to poorly place equipment that you can't destroy (due to either FF being off, or FF restrictions (FW negative points and standings loss)) that will harm you? Yeah, I think not. 4: Seems legit. Although there needs to be a way to counter this (perhaps a scan will reveal that the decoys aren't real, and therefore removes them from your HUD/radar). 5: I get it, but seems to fill the same role as cloaking devices, which will be here in 1.8. 6: FBs sound good, but we may want to limit these to say 1 rather than the traditional 3, and we have to be careful not to make them overly powerful (effect needs to go away after 2-3 seconds) less nobody will use a heavy with a close range weapon.
Dustbunny Durrr ReD or DeaD 126	Posted - 2014.03.04 00:40:00 - [2] - Quote Roy Ventus wrote: 1. Yeah, that's I imagined would be the issue with the design I stated. If we could limit it to FW, PC, or general Null-Sec it would be decent. And if not that, we can simply make it so that the precision is very low in comparison to the scanner. 2. I imagined it would be the most "okay" one on the list. 3. Was worried about this the most. I wanted to say, a jammer that would only jam the enemy team but I don't know how well that fits in lore or if it's even possible. 4. Ehh. I don't really want a lot of counters for this. If you could simply scan it away with an active scanner, it would be useless. The decoy is actually best used when you have the enemy constantly scanning you. Really, if you wanted it gone you can destroy it. There's also the fact that players will eventually realize that certain profiles on the tacnet are actually fake. 5. Not to sound like I'm attacking you, but I don't think you do get it. Cloaks will be for running past the enemy to get to an area, sneaking around, breaching areas while at the expense of still being pretty visible up close. Camo is for being up close and personal with the enemy, penetrating their formations from the inside, and damn near "spying." In CQC, a cloak will still shine red on your reticule and those light refraction will definitely make you a threat. Essentially, the cloak will let the enemy know there's a threat in his presence, but they can't see them while the camo will not tell the enemy's there's a threat in their presence but they can obviously "see you." The cloak will make players examine their environment while the camo will make players examine their ranks. You can imagine that it will get way more heavy in FW and PC. 6. Yeah I agree. Allowance of two with a high fitting cost as well as a short duration period. Give it a small amount of time where the players must take advantage. 1: I would limit it to PC or future matches similar to PC (where it is corp on corp, and there exists a hierarchy of approval for who can play in the match. Then I would consider it fine and would encourage teammates to either pickup or kill their wounded. 3: You can make up all kinds of ideas to get around lore. (IE: It jams a certain frequency that the opponents radar uses but yours does not, etc.) 4: Well, making them destroyable is a counter, and I would be fine with that. 5: No worries about any personal attacks. I think it would be wise to first see where we stand with the final version of the cloak. IMO, the cloak seems like a game changer, and this would potentially go even further in confusing the enemy. Might be something to revisit after 1.8 6: Yes. Also, it should affect everyone in range, not just hostiles, so that you cant have your guys run in there, flash the enemy, while your teammates can see. Also, how would this affect vehicles? Would they be blinded but not deaf, or would the magnetics affect their electronics as well?