|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yan Darn
Science For Death
638
   |
Posted - 2014.04.23 18:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
TL;DR: I'm a scout who wants cloaks removed - mainly because I don't trust you QQers or CCPs...'interesting' take on balancing.
Disclaimer: been playing since before 1.3 at least - only ever specced Gal scout.
I believe once upon a time CCP removed active scanners and reintroduced them when 'fixed' (lulz I know, but bare with me here)...please just remove cloaks. Create a covert ops frame at some point and give that frame a really limiting role bonus instead.
Replace our bonus to something useful to scouts.
You see every role has their 'thing' IMO.
Assaults = weapons = bonus to weapon fitting.
Logistics = equipment = bonus to equipment fitting.
Sentinels = Tank = bonus to Splash damage (aka heavy weapons and explosives).
Scouts = stealth/mobility = bonus to electronics and biotics mods?
However - you (CCP) kinda decided our 'thing' should be something you hadn't really invented or tested yet. Cloaks.
I get the distinct impression you were more concerned about introducing something new and flashy, than actually balancing scouts.
When you realised you weren't technically proficient enough to allow us our speed, I think you floundered - patch after patch - trying to figure out what to do with us. However, most people don't play light frames - so it's understandable that our plight wasn't a highest concern.
For me gettin cloaking devices from CCP is like having an absentee parent, who one day turns around, starts pretending like they care, does some nice things - but then gives you this god-awful tacky gold chain and kinda forcefully insists you wear the damn thing everywhere you go.
I think you love this gift more than we do (feel free to let me know if I'm wrong).
It doesn't matter if we get beat up or made fun of - you won't accept that your horrible gift is the problem and you will start making other changes in complete denial that if you just took this horrible gift away and give us something more sensible, things would turn around fast.
I don't think cloaks are OP.
I think they are glitchy and inherently difficult to balance. CCP can't/won't fix those glitches effectively.
I think CCP will pass them off as 'features'.
I think CCP will nerf all those things I liked about scouts to accommodate these 'Cloak features'.
Maybe I'm wrong - but many scouts before 1.8 were not asking for cloaks as our saviour. We generally enjoyed the basic premise of 'scout' - it just wasn't particularly competitive, and other frames could do what it could do but better/less penalties (sound familiar?).
Maybe I'm just another hipster scout who just hates seeing us become more popular...I dunno.
I'm just still waiting for CCP to comment on this flood of QQ we've had so naturally I'm assuming the worst. I'm a CCP fanboy at heart - but even they have to admit, they got some issues...
The Ghost of Bravo
|
Yan Darn
Science For Death
639
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 18:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nocturnal Soul wrote:No one is forcing you to use it I'm pretty sure you can find something else to use with that 300 CPU and 80-90 PG.
I don't think I was clear about this.
Look at our role bonus.
Look at every other role bonus.
Im suggesting a broader more useful bonus to scouts. How does me not using cloaks achieve that exactly?
I'm not saying I hate cloaks. I like cloaks - great for moving across open space, getting into flanking position etc. The only issues I have with cloaks are things that are generally accepted as glitches.
If we can fix cloaks without nerfing scouts - fine +1 to CCP.
If it comes to nerfing scouts so we can keep cloaks - then No, Bad CCP, Bad.
Imma being paranoid? Probably. If someone wants to tell me CCP doesn't ever drop a massive nerf hammer on things that there is QQ about - well you can - I just won't believe you.
Edit: @ Awry - please see above.
The Ghost of Bravo
|
Yan Darn
Science For Death
650
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 21:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Awry Barux wrote:Yan Darn wrote:Nocturnal Soul wrote:No one is forcing you to use it I'm pretty sure you can find something else to use with that 300 CPU and 80-90 PG. I don't think I was clear about this. Look at our role bonus. Look at every other role bonus. Im suggesting a broader more useful bonus to scouts. How does me not using cloaks achieve that exactly? I'm not saying I hate cloaks. I like cloaks - great for moving across open space, getting into flanking position etc. The only issues I have with cloaks are things that are generally accepted as glitches. If we can fix cloaks without nerfing scouts - fine +1 to CCP. If it comes to nerfing scouts so we can keep cloaks - then No, Bad CCP, Bad. Imma being paranoid? Probably. If someone wants to tell me CCP doesn't ever drop a massive nerf hammer on things that there is QQ about - well you can - I just won't believe you. Edit: @ Awry - please see above. Ah, I see. Yeah, I share that paranoia. I would argue that you can view addition of the second equipment slot, and the associated fitting stat buff, as a non-cloak-reliant role bonus, for dropping uplinks and controlling the battlefield, but I see your point. [BThe issue is, if you change the scout role bonus, how do you make cloaks only really useful to scouts, since removing them entirely is not on the table?[/b]
The million dollar question as it were. The reason I've created this thread really. I'm at a loss - and if we can't get some good suggestions going, then I'm basically whining at CCP in a preemptive manner, so they reconsider how they are balancing the suits before its too late. The balancing of the med frames is a big part of this debate IMO - I'm not convinced that is as widely accepted as I might hope.
My best suggestion?
Keep cloaks, remove damp bonus from cloaks (fix glitches), make cloaks fail on damage, increase recharge time and lower duration, increase shimmer when sprinting, make them deactivate when near enemies, add delay before being able to recloak - oh increase profile while cloak is active (that one is a gem for sure).
Drastically lower fitting costs (keep them higher than most though)
Finally, change scout bonus to be more broadly useful as other roles.
CCP keep what I will assume significant development time went into.
QQers get their nerfs.
Non-scouts who want to use cloaks are more able.
Scouts who choose to use cloaks will be regarded somewhere on the same level of awesome as PLC scouts and Melee scouts.
Win-Win-Win-Win as they as say.
@Nocturnal - yes, please see above. I do see your point though.
@ Appia - you've said this to me before. I didn't understand then - but are you saying the damp bonus from cloaks is effectively a different way of applying the old damp bonus (on top of the profile buff)? Apologies - pretty tired now and trying to make quick responses, so I hope I got that right.
Its just a lot of people are suggesting just removing the damp bonus from cloaks - in my eyes the cloak really would just become a cheap gimmick then.
@ Matticus - Yup that pretty much sums it up for me too. I think I need to get off the forums for a bit lol. I just got tired of responding to real BS points in all these BS nerf scout threads.
Suddenly you have people saying passive scanning range, Shotguns and being able to go under ADV and regular proto scanners relatively easy is all OP now.
Where were these guys before 1.8 exactly?
The Ghost of Bravo
|
Yan Darn
Science For Death
651
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:I kind of understand where you are coming from, but I think fear is a poor motivation for doing this.
If this game is going to survive long term, we can't make concessions based on CCPs history of overly nerfing things that are sometimes only tangentially related to the real problems (in this case CCP nerfing scouts because of changes that need to be made with cloaks).
Long term, I don't want to play a game where I have to request significant nerfs simply to avoid crippling nerfs.
This kind of discussion is not productive, and only makes the QQers the real winners.
Sorry King missed this (kinda had something to eat mid post...) - it's not (just) fear.
It's just how Matticus said - role bonus for one Item? If you like that Item fine - but seriously, role bonus for one Item? That has divisive written all over it surely?
I wasn't thrilled about that before (I never felt removing just the racial bonus was just enough), but hey - it was part of the buff we were waiting for, why look a gift horse in the mouth, right?
I never requested a nerf to avoid nerfs - I was telling CCP that if their response to the cloak QQ is to 'rebalance' scouts as a whole - well - that is not a road I want to go down. Not for cloaks.
The Ghost of Bravo
|
Yan Darn
Science For Death
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 23:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:There is always one of you in the crowd, isn't there? Further proof that it's impossible to please everyone.
I assume this was aimed at me and not 'I MUST SAY EVERYTHING IN CAPS' guy - lulz.
No seriously though, I've edited the OP to clarify - still quite plausible you will disagree with me though.
Title stays however. Click Bait.
The Ghost of Bravo
|
Yan Darn
Science For Death
658
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 07:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote:Matticus Monk wrote:21yrOld Knight wrote:Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote:STFU WITH ALL THIS QQ CHANGE HOW THIS WORKS CAUSE I DONT LIKE IT AND IT KILLS ME BULLCRAP PLAY THE GAME HOW CCP MADE IT OR QUIT Woa now. No need to yell. Sometimes there's a need to yell. Not only once, but twice. Because certain times you want people to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are a baby and throw tantrums. i cannot help it if my vita double posts sometimes, it happens big deal so fkn what. there is a difference in feedback and qq, cloaks work fine, scouts are intended tobe the stealth role with a fkn cloak read the suit card and it says so even before there were cloaks they were intended to be the suits that go invisible, just because you dont like how cloaks operate dosnt men they are broken or over powered, ccp released a decent piece of content and you whiners are still not satisfied any you wont be untill you get you way and ccp brakes it for you and everyone else. ccp already changed how they wanted the cloaks to operate before they were even released because csm said how they originally intended them to be would make you guys cry, like you are doing now, about how it needs to be changed and how its op. and the OPs suggested list of changes is utter crap, decloak delay, dropping cloack when damage is incured, removing the role bonus to scouts for cloaks, removing the damper bonus on the cloak, making the cloak increase signautre when active are all crap ideas stupid as hell crap
I somehow feel you missed the point of that post - perhaps the edited OP will clarify.
I specifically don't want cloaks nerfed - I've never mentioned nerfing cloaks outside of the context of it ceasing to be a scout specific item.
Those are indeed terrible ideas I mentioned - it's the kind of crap Ive seen posted in the actual 'nerf cloaks/scouts' threads.
Right now, unintended behaviours aside, cloaks are in a good place and while sore about not getting a broader/versatile bonus - I fully see the benefits of a cloak to a scout.
I don't want to see cloaks nerfed if we are to keep them as a scouts role bonus.
However...
I don't want to keep them for scouts role bonus in the event they are nerfed.
Also...
I don't want to see scouts in general nerfed if CCP finds it difficult to 'balance' cloaks.
So if any cloak/scout nerfing occurs, I'd rather they consider taking cloaks out of the equation and gave us a broader role bonus instead. To some this constitutes a nerf to scouts - I really don't share that position. A shame in many ways yes - a nerf? Not if the new bonus is handled well...
For example - for me one of the biggest problems caused by removing cloaks would be losing that active dampening bonus.
If CCP decide to balance cloaks by removing that dampening bonus from cloaks however (as many suggest)... then that argument to keep cloaks doesn't even matter anymore...
The Ghost of Bravo
|
|
|
| |
|