DUST Search - [Discussion] Scan System in Legion

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

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
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
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2144	Posted - 2014.05.26 20:03:00 - [2] - Quote I'd also like to throw in the concept that Active and Passive scans should, as far as possible without distorting eWar, fill different niches. Having them function in too similar a manner results in one or the other being mathematically superior and renders the other inert content for the game (obviously such a situation is not ideal). Cheers, Cross Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
Xx-VxF-xX Void of Faction 74	Posted - 2014.05.26 22:08:00 - [3] - Quote There should be no All-Or-Nothing. Everything you do should effect your profile. kneeling, standing, walking, running, shooting, reloading, weapon swap, equipment placement, turning, talking, typing, even farting, burping, baby crying, mom screaming, etc (mic must always be on). make legion a serious game where you sitting in front of the screen is just like you really being there. I want scanning to be like on a sub with the enemy looking for you. everyone being as quit as possible not to be detected. Everyone wants to be the Queen even though one Pawn can be the difference in winning and losing.
Sete Clifton PSU GHOST SYNDICATE DARKSTAR ARMY 429	Posted - 2014.05.26 22:46:00 - [4] - Quote As far as having them actually do different things, how about passive scans just have enemies show up on the radar and active scanners physically show an "outline" of enemies in the 3D space which shows through walls/other obstructions.
Alder King 26	Posted - 2014.05.27 01:35:00 - [5] - Quote Remove Active Scanners. Replace with deployable Scan Probes.
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2149	Posted - 2014.05.27 02:42:00 - [6] - Quote 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 Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 5795	Posted - 2014.05.27 03:11:00 - [7] - 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
Oswald Rehnquist 1423	Posted - 2014.05.27 04:49:00 - [8] - Quote I chickened out of starting a thread similar this, but essentially my initial thought was more inline with having multiple detection systems. As a person who has dealt a lot with sensors and detection systems, I initially had like a page on all the different types of sensors, but I was afraid I'd scare people away by making it too complicated. Passive Scans Our current system is suppose to be a sound based detection system (db is decibels, which is why dampening is called what it is), but it operates nothing like like that. Out of all real life detection systems, sound base is in fact the only passive form of detection which goes beyond line of sight, all others require active pulses (which are detectable and can be scrambled). That being the case, having the suits passive scans be sensitive actual noise which would translate to movement and gun shots, allows for more tactical play and expansion. First, this encourages the idea of weapon attachments such as a suppressor, second you can have different tiers such as active stealth vs active detection and passive stealth and passive detection as two entirely separate games, and third there is not just one scanning system, meaning having teams of divergent scanners would be a good thing Active Scans Instead of a piece of equipment, it would be interesting if we had visors in its place. I'm sure most of us are familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum and their wave properties. But you get 3 different types of scanning system when you take the extremes on each end Radio (long), Infrared (medium), X-ray (short). The Visor model has you lose aspects/details of your normal vision for special sensory abilities. (sorry for the guys annoying voice) Below 28 dB
I-Shayz-I I-----I 3547	Posted - 2014.05.31 22:01:00 - [9] - Quote Great feedback Marking for index 7162 wp with a Repair Tool! List of Legion Feedback Threads!


Pages: 1 :: [one page]