The idea was to force people to choose between stealth or brick-tanking. If people are choosing to brick tank their Gallente scouts, they'll be easier to detect now. If you want to fit your Gallente scout to be stealthy, you will be squishy. So, they didn't fail at what they were trying to achieve.

War, Putin

It should always have been a module efficacy bonus. Same for the cal scout imo.

These passive suit bonuses just don't work.

I literally just stood up and said to myself "Why didn't I think of that?!" /facepalm

(Apologies to anyone that actually did suggest it earlier that we may have missed.)

I'll have a chat with CCP Ratatti and we can some numbers. That might actually work better, not to mention it would be closer to the Amarr and Minmatar scouts which also have module/weapon efficacy bonuses as well.

Thought: As much as I like it, (or did before the hotfix) do we really need the range enhancement bonus?

There are multiple solutions to a problem. Changing the bonus so that it affects modules is another possible solution; if not an arguably better one.

The reduction of cloak duration was done to encourage "specialization into cloaks", which means CCP want people to use proto cloaks. My personal opinion is that the reduction to cloak duration is good because it discourages camping and encourages more skilled use of the cloak by forcing players to really choose when they should use their cloak in order to be effective. For what reasons do you think that the cloak duration reduction was a bad idea?

Blame the mass of vocal scout players who feel they should have the ability to be un-detectable to everything for the return of cloak bonus. They managed to make a good argument or peer pressured CCP into not removing the cloak bonus; I'm still debating which of the two occurred.

Point still stands that the changes made were not done solely to discourage brick tanking. So, regarding this matter, you are still wrong.

Face it Godin, you got trolled by political joke in which you weren't even the main target being made fun of. Hell, your even name calling.

o/ Logibro

Not sure where you guys are going with this. Or why.

GalScouts getting better damp bonuses via modules?
Presently, I have to run two damps on my Gal to beat competitive scans. This is good.
If I could get away with one, nothing would prevent me from doing so, then stacking 3 plates.

I'd be an Invisible Monster allover again; which was impetus behind the Alpha nerf package.

---

Unless, of course, what Godin is trying to say is that the GalScout nerf package was insufficient.
Its too early to tell whether or not that's the case; I've personally observed a decline in their prevalence.

If I understand correctly, Godin is concerned about a brick-tanked GalScouts.
Once again, if we fix Assault Frames we will solve this problem.

Assault Frames should be the go-to slayer suit.

Not the Slayer Logi.
Not the brick-tanked GalScout.
Not the fine-rifle-toting Heavy.

The Assault Frame.

An active proto cloak and 2 complex dampeners works as well. 3 proto damps without cloak ***





*** CCP Logibro or any other DEV reading this. Precision, Dampening, and Range Amplifying modues have an issue with order of stacking penality. Basic prioritizes as 100%, then Advance Modules, then Prototype modules. Making what should only take a basic mod on the Gallente take a complex modules.

Scout gk.0? 2 Damps + 2 Kincats or 3 Damps if/when the enemy is picking me up.



Still trying to figure out WTF you're talking about.
You're upset that GalScouts still stack plates?
So you want to rework the GalScout bonus?

Either I'm not understanding you, or you aren't making sense.

Based on my math you would need two complex and one advanced...

The problem was fast-as-hell 600+ HP GalScouts ducking radar.
That should be less of a problem now.

Yes, some GalScouts may still tank, but they're now slower and easier to scan.
What really sucks is that in fixing the GalScout problem, the MinScout got boned.

I'm just wondering if it needs to be thing at all (at least for gal)
If we lost that we could go back up a bit in dampening. Maybe.

Are you saying ...
Instead of nerfing eWar Scouts, Rattati should've nerfed bricked Scouts?

I've read that before somewhere.

Apparently I am think in the head.
I just reread your thread start to finish (including title).

Found lots of non-specific moaning and complaining.
Found no numbers, suggestions, specifics, etc.

I understand that you're upset, but I've no idea what its about.
You've left a lot to the imagination.

Why not tell us specifically what's p*ssing you off and propose how you'd fix it?
Is this not the Feedback / Suggestion section of the Forums?

Someday, you'll have a beautiful girlfriend or wife.
She'll be furious. You will have no idea why.

You'll clean the garage, sweep the deck and wash the cars.
She'll still be furious.

You'll ask did I forget a special occasion? To take out the trash?
Her only response will be to glare at you.

Are you trying to be my video-game wife, Godin?
I've never had an internet wife before.

How about switching the range increase to 2% or 3% ion pistol damage per level?