Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5787
   |
Posted - 2014.05.26 20:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
There's a pretty unanimous agreement that the "All or Nothing" approach to the current scanning system in Dust 514 isn't optimal. There is some aspects of a "tie" in that Active Scanners that match the target's profile with their precision will say that there is a margin of error, but this only applies to active scanners, after-all.
Common complaints are:
The scan system is All-or-Nothing. You've either scanned someone, or you haven't. There is no middle ground.
Scanning provides information to the entire squad, a teamplay aspect as opposed to dampening which is personal.
Cloaking isn't as powerful as dampening because invisibility is negated when a chevron is placed over your head. This technically forces the two to work hand-in-hand.
With the current system, the community is divided between players who feel there should at least be one or more ways to scan another player, and players who feel there should at least be one or more ways to avoid being scanned.
An important aspect of this discussion thread is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the all-or-nothing approach. This discussion thread is regarding the pros-and-cons of suggested methods to combat the current system, or suggestions of new ways to do so. Try to stay on topic.
There have been many propositions on how to resolve the all-or-nothing scanning system.
One method is implementing a system of precision falloff over range, which in laymens terms means that the farther away your target is (within your scan range of course) the less likely your precision will identify them as a threat. The closer the target is to the point of origin (the player) the closer they are to the true precision. This could work both on the level of active scanners and precision scanners.
Another method conceptualized, here, is similar but on the opposite spectrum (at least by my understanding). Assuming I'm understanding correctly - I've asked for elaboration - is that the farther away from you, the player, the less likely your dampening will protect you. The closer to an enemy, the more powerful your profile will be against him. I may be mistaken in what is being relayed, however.
I recently proposed a third option in some skype channels: an "uncertainty" model which would act on the current system, but given some leeway. The concept being that if I scan you (active or passive) and my precision is within a certain range (we'll say -10% to 10%) I will receive your icon on the map, but not the chevron. This provides information as to the enemy's general location without seeing a big red marker pointing down at their head.
The overall goal is to make the scanning system more intuitive and not a definite thing. There should be thought behind the action of scanning, or attempting to prevent being scanned; the system should provide uncertainty on the battlefield which, in theory, provides for an overall better experience and more leeway for both sides. Post up your thoughts toward proposed solutions and discuss, or propose your own solutions.
Useful Links
Aeon Amadi for CPM1
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5795
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 03:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:An idea (which could possibly be combined with some of the others) is to have the duration a merc remains visible to scans be modified by the degree to which those scans exceed the actual dB threshold.
This clearly is not a mechanic which would work with passive scans as well so adding to other aspects could tie it all together.
1) Make passive scans personal display only (yes this limits their utility, but in a coordinated squad or team that into will still be passed via comms it just moves the burden from the mechanics to the players actions).
2) Give scans a falloff which is modified by the damp rating of all targets, as described in the OP.
Combined these mechanics would remove the all or nothing situation, provide niche play for active and passive scans and keep stealth fittings stable against both types of scan. Pushing us further from a mathematical best singular fit and closer to the realm of incomparables and possible player innovation.
These are very preliminary thoughts I've been discussing with some others but they seem to have potential.
0.02 ISK
Cross
Very nice. Definitely would mix it up and give a lot of incentive to go beyond -just- being able to scan the target and give incentive toward specialization play.
Useful Links
Aeon Amadi for CPM1
|