the problem is 3 precision enhancers is needed to catch 1 damped scouts. a scout can hide with little effect, and it takes a cal scout heavily investing to catch lightly damped scouts.

@ Appia
I assume you're joking, but just in case "I am no slayer" means I've forgone shields extenders and damage amps to run precision enhancers. To answer your question "what really has changed?", the guy above has the right idea. A CalScout will need 3-4 cPEs to detect what he could've previously detected with 2 cPEs. That's a serious nerf for the CalScout.

If a CalScout is to be ineffective at hunting 1-2 damped Scouts, then why run a CalScout?
If the goal is to recon everyone except Scouts, wouldn't I be better off running on a GalScout?

@ Appia
I assume you're joking, but just in case "I am no slayer" means I've forgone shields extenders and damage amps to run precision enhancers. To answer your question "what really has changed?", the guy above has the right idea. A CalScout will need 3-4 cPEs to detect what he could've previously detected with 2 cPEs. That's a serious nerf for the CalScout.

If a CalScout is to be ineffective at hunting 1-2 damped Scouts, then why run a CalScout?
If the goal is to recon everyone except Scouts, wouldn't I be better off running on a GalScout?

I'm joking, but not in the way you think. I mean, like, have someone good enough that doesn't need the HP mods to kill most suits. I jokingly meant that that wasn't you.
You run for (A) to see people coming to make up for your lack of visual or tactical awareness, (B) you make a singular sacrifice to make one or more individuals to use dampeners and reduce their combat effectiveness.

If you run 4 precision enhancers, which are all of your high slots. And I run 3 dampeners, which are all of my low lots. . . you're still the better scouts because you can put armor, repair mods, codebreakers, range amplifiers, dampeners.

You use scanners to either, (A) protect you and your squad from ambushes and surprise flanking maneuvers and (B) force multiple people to sacrifice utility or survivability just to use basic tactics such as staying out of Line of Sight.

If I, as a minja have to run all my lows as complex damps just to be as low profile as possible, why shouldn't a cal have to make near if not the same sacrifice to pick me up on his scans?

Your "what if" puts us in the same spot we are in post Alpha - only the basic damp gets you under 1 complex module. Min Scouts aren't the fastest or best hackers because they don't have the option of "3 damps or 2 damps + cloak" with the latter letting them use codebreaker or biotic module

Then why not ...

A) Change MinScout slot layout from 3/3 to 2/4; hold all else constant.
B) Drop MinScout's base Scan Profile by a few points; hold all else constant.

Both solve our puzzle in fewer moves. Both eliminate risk of unduly harming the CalScout.
Your thoughts?

PS: I'd personally prefer A over B; it'd lend the Minja greater flexibility (all the good Scout stuff is low slots).

Here are some numbers

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJp1KcwzCLy4WICjpx49jUA46uqKulFvAakmyvxcbJc/edit?usp=sharing

Appia supports and endorses the removal of Gallente Dampening and Caldari Range bonus. Instead Appia supports Caldari bonus being 4% per level to the efficacy of Precision Enhancers and Gallente having a 3% bonus per level to efficacy of Range Amplifiers

Good job forum warriors

Keep this up and I might actually skill into a scout class soon

Indeed, he should. But by Appia's proposed model, he does not:
If you run 3 complex damps, your scan profile will be 14 : 16 dB (proto cloak on : off)
The CalScout with 4 complex precision enhancers sees 17 dB and above; he cannot scan you.

The two of you make a similar sacrifices; you've spent all 3 of your lows and he all 4 of his highs.
In your example, the Minja's slot sacrifice pays returns; the CalScout's slot sacrifice does not.

---

What if the CalScout w/4 precision enhancers scanned at 15 dB (instead of Appia's 17)?
You could slip by undetected cloaked, but if he'd spot you if he happened to catch you uncloaked.

Edit: The "what-if" above looks very familiar; didn't do that on purpose :-)

Your "what if" puts us in the same spot we are in post Alpha - only the basic damp gets you under 1 complex module. Min Scouts aren't the fastest or best hackers because they don't have the option of "3 damps or 2 damps + cloak" with the latter letting them use codebreaker or biotic module

How, if at all, would this 'deadlock' be effected by the reallocation of codebreakers to high slots?

Part of what it looks like we're running into is a problem with absolute "yes/no" scanning results but since that is quite possibly fundamental to current engine mechanics what can we do to work around it and create an environment which at least mitigates those absolute results.

Thoughts? (or is my very premise somehow flawed? )

~Cross

How, if at all, would this 'deadlock' be effected by the reallocation of codebreakers to high slots?

Part of what it looks like we're running into is a problem with absolute "yes/no" scanning results but since that is quite possibly fundamental to current engine mechanics what can we do to work around it and create an environment which at least mitigates those absolute results.

Thoughts? (or is my very premise somehow flawed? )

~Cross

Neutral leaning towards positive. I don't currently use codebreakers primarily because I have so few lows that I feel are better used with kincats and damps. This move might give me the opportunity to actually give them a try.

Neutral leaning towards positive. I don't currently use codebreakers primarily because I have so few lows that I feel are better used with kincats and damps. This move might give me the opportunity to actually give them a try.

Then why not ...

A) Change MinScout slot layout from 3/3 to 2/4; hold all else constant.
B) Drop MinScout's base Scan Profile by a few points; hold all else constant.

Both solve our puzzle in fewer moves. Both eliminate risk of unduly harming the CalScout.
Your thoughts?

PS: I'd personally prefer A over B; it'd lend the Minja greater flexibility (all the good Scout stuff is low slots).

I prefer B over A. Speed and shields go hand in hand and tbh I don't even care if I'm scanned anymore you may see me but you'll never catch me

I'll have a sit down and look with CCP Ratatti next week on this. We might not put it into Bravo just to give us more time to get data and since we already have a lot on our plate for that, but we can consider it for a later hotfix.

IMO, I really like pairing Caldari bonus to Precision Enhancers to 4% per level and Gallente bonus to Profile Dampeners at 3%

Changed my mind. Please remove dampening bonus from Gallente, give them a bonus to range Amplifiers. Give Caldari 4% bonus per level to Precision Enhancers

---

Why do I support these changes?
Basically, Stealth needs to be an aspect of every Scout suit. If Gallente have an advantage over other suits and a Precision/Dampening balance between Gallente and Caldari create problems for Minmatar and Amarr.

By removing Gallente Scout's bonus to Dampening we can then balance Caldari Precision against the Role instead of a single suit.

To keep Gallente from being the Brick Tank of choice 2 dampeners and a choice between a thrid dampener and a cloak needs to exist (without extensive rework done on the cloak to make it an option and not associate it with dampening. which would need another balance pass on scan/precision). The Minmatar Scout also need this option as too keep the balance between active dampening and speed or active dampening and hacking.

And now I'll ask my Scoutly brothers to come in and fill in the rest of the explanation as I'm exhausted and need to sleep.