DUST Search - Pssst. CCP Logibro

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Pssst. CCP Logibro

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Appia Nappia 858	Posted - 2014.06.05 01:08:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Here are some numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJp1KcwzCLy4WICjpx49jUA46uqKulFvAakmyvxcbJc/edit?usp=sharing Secretly Appia Vibbia If you can read my signature... I'm on the wrong alt.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 3463	Posted - 2014.06.05 01:14:00 - [2] - Quote She reads minds KRRROOOOOOM
Appia Vibbia Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2795	Posted - 2014.06.05 01:19:00 - [3] - Quote Llast 326 wrote: She reads minds The question is, do I just leave that as is and make you feel awe towards my spreadsheet warrior skills... ... or do I tell you I posted these stats in the Gallente Scout feedback page because I made them 2 weeks ago. Appia Vibbia for CPM1 AppiaVibbia(at)gmail(dot)com AKA Nappia, AKA Mathppia
Llast 326 An Arkhos 3465	Posted - 2014.06.05 01:20:00 - [4] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: Llast 326 wrote: She reads minds The question is, do I just leave that as is and make you feel awe towards my spreadsheet warrior skills... ... or do I tell you I posted these stats in the Gallente Scout feedback page because I made them 2 weeks ago. I say leave me in awe Shhhh I won't tell me a thing KRRROOOOOOM
Appia Vibbia Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2805	Posted - 2014.06.05 02:39:00 - [5] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Here are some numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJp1KcwzCLy4WICjpx49jUA46uqKulFvAakmyvxcbJc/edit?usp=sharing ~~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 Appia Vibbia for CPM1 AppiaVibbia(at)gmail(dot)com AKA Nappia, AKA Mathppia
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1421	Posted - 2014.06.05 03:23:00 - [6] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: 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. There's time. We'll wait. But thank you for trusting us :-) Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Matticus Monk Ordus Trismegistus 2005	Posted - 2014.06.05 03:37:00 - [7] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: Appia Nappia wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Here are some numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJp1KcwzCLy4WICjpx49jUA46uqKulFvAakmyvxcbJc/edit?usp=sharing ~~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. I really think that until something like this is done (remove the stealth Gal bonus, or apply it to all suits equally as it used to be) that balancing EWAR will be a major chore and leave the two non-EWAR suits high and dry.... they need stealth. They are scouts too. Double posting like a Kaiser.
Jaceon Pale-eye DUST University Ivy League 99	Posted - 2014.06.05 04:09:00 - [8] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: 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. Appia for CPM1. Vote Appia Vibbia for CPM1 or I'll stab you in the neck! (ingame m8 m8 o7 o7)
Immortal John Ripper 22298	Posted - 2014.06.05 08:26:00 - [9] - Quote proposed changes approved. Your heart's desire is to be told some mystery. The mystery is that there is no mystery. I am the Alpha and the Omega.
General John Ripper 22393	Posted - 2014.06.05 08:26:00 - [10] - Quote proposed changes approved. Your heart's desire is to be told some mystery. The mystery is that there is no mystery. I am the Alpha and the Omega.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1510	Posted - 2014.06.08 16:14:00 - [11] - Quote Appia, I can't make sense out of your spreadsheet. Is it possible for you to restructure it to match Rattati's? (i.e. Current Value, Proposed Value) Questions: A) By what means did you come to the proposed percentage values? B) In your calculations, is the proposed efficacy bonus subject to stacking penalty? C) What is the proposed dB value of CalScout precision at 1, 2, 3 and 4 cPE? D) What is the net change (current vs proposed) to CalScout precision at 1, 2, 3 and 4 cPE? E) How many Damps will a Scout need to beat CalScout precision at 1, 2, 3 and 4 cPE? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Appia Vibbia Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2834	Posted - 2014.06.08 17:12:00 - [12] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Appia, I can't make sense out of your spreadsheet. Is it possible for you to restructure it to match Rattati's? (i.e. Current Value, Proposed Value) Questions: A) By what means did you come to the proposed percentage values? B) In your calculations, is the proposed efficacy bonus subject to stacking penalty? C) What is the proposed dB value of CalScout precision at 1, 2, 3 and 4 cPE? D) What is the net change (current vs proposed) to CalScout precision at 1, 2, 3 and 4 cPE? E) How many Damps will a Scout need to beat CalScout precision at 1, 2, 3 and 4 cPE? Ok. Renamed the tables. A) I used the base 5% as a straight conversion of suit bonus to modules bonus. I then added 4% and 3% for variety before I had the calculations done. The goal was to make it so Caldari Scanning was competitive with Minmatar Scout having the option to choose between 3 dampeners or 2 dampeners and a cloak, which is the current meta for Gallente Scouts. The problem I kept seeing was that as long as Gallente and Minmatar had different values there wasn't going to be a balance so I eventually just tossed out Gallente Dampening bonus as a proposal. B) Yes. Bonus is applied to modules, then stacking penalty is applied to modified values. C) Those values would be in D7, D8, D9, and D10 D) difference of -5.76 for one complex modules, difference of -3.806784 for 2 complex modules, difference of -2.878748294 for 3 complex modules, and a difference of -2.504631669 for 4 complex modules E) 1 basic damp, 1 complex damp, 2 complex damps. 3 complex damps or 2 complex and proto cloak. Appia Vibbia for CPM1 AppiaVibbia(at)gmail(dot)com AKA Nappia, AKA Mathppia
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1510	Posted - 2014.06.08 17:17:00 - [13] - Quote Thanks for the clarification. By my math, the Minmatar would still end up scan-bait for CalScout, though the CalScout's max scan range would be slightly less. Is this what you intended? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Sir Dukey SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 997	Posted - 2014.06.08 17:30:00 - [14] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: [quote=CCP Logibro]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. 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[/quote does efficiency mean like precison mods will be giving like 40% at complex on a cal scout??
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1510	Posted - 2014.06.08 17:37:00 - [15] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: 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 Here's how I ran your numbers: CalScout: +20% to Precision Enhancers at Level 5 GalScout: +15% to Range Amplifiers at Level 5 So ... Cmp Range Extender progression for a non-GalScout would be (45%, 39%, 26%, 13%). Cmp Range Extender progression for a GalScout would be (60%, 52%, 34%, 17%). I added the +15% to the module's base value; that's clearly not what you had in mind. Oopsy. Sir Dukey wrote: does efficiency mean like precison mods will be giving like 40% at complex on a cal scout?? That's exactly what I thought at first. I think she means (20% x 1.2) vs (20% + 20%) Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Floyd20 Azizora L.O.T.I.S. 46	Posted - 2014.06.08 17:44:00 - [16] - Quote caldari scout looks very weak in this idea. any scout countering 1 precision enhancer with just a basic damp? that forces all cal scouts that are trying to do what they are built to do running 2 complex min, and most good scouts will be running a complex damp most of the time(except maybe cal scout), forcing 3 precisions when fighting scout squads, while they have only used 1 slot. And you won't see many if any gal scouts running more then 1 range amp, wont be able to detect most scouts even with max precision. need to buff precision enhancers to match damps (10,20,25%) if a bonus like this came in. plus i think CCP wants cal scout to max out at 15db (matching gal logi with focused).
Appia Vibbia Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2835	Posted - 2014.06.08 17:54:00 - [17] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: I added the +15% to the module's base value; that's clearly not what you had in mind. Oopsy. And you've found the difference between "to base value" and "to efficacy " Appia Vibbia for CPM1 AppiaVibbia(at)gmail(dot)com AKA Nappia, AKA Mathppia
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1511	Posted - 2014.06.08 17:57:00 - [18] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: I added the +15% to the module's base value; that's clearly not what you had in mind. Oopsy. And you've found the difference between "to base value" and "to efficacy " Right. Fixed my calculations back at the Barbershop. Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2552	Posted - 2014.06.08 18:16:00 - [19] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: Appia Nappia wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Here are some numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJp1KcwzCLy4WICjpx49jUA46uqKulFvAakmyvxcbJc/edit?usp=sharing ~~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. denied. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1512	Posted - 2014.06.08 18:20:00 - [20] - Quote I don't know, Appia. That's a serious nerf to CalScouts, and it'd likely eliminate the role of CalScout as "Scout Hunter". CalScout Scan Precision (Current : Proposed) 40.0 : 40.0 dB - Base 27.0 : 36.0 dB - Base + Max Passives 21.6 : 27.4 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(1) 17.9 : 21.6 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(2) 15.8 : 18.9 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(3) 14.9 : 17.4 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(4) Proposed Scan Profile (All Scouts, Prototype Cloak On : Off) 31.5 : 35.0 dB - Base 28.4 : 31.5 dB - Base + Max Passives 21.2 : 23.6 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (1) 16.7 : 18.5 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (2) 14.0 : 15.6 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (3) 13.3 : 14.7 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (4) I presently hunt other Scouts using 3 precision enhancers (16 dB). I'm not much good at killing things, but I'm good at spotting all but the most committed Scouts. If this new model is adopted, I'll be downgraded to 19 dB. Any Scout with 2 damps and even a basic cloak can sneak right past me. And if I fully sacrifice my ck.0 to run 4 precision enhancers, any Scout running 3 damps will eat my lunch; not to mention every other combatant on the field. So ... as a CalScout, what will I do? Will I hunt Scouts poorly or will I tank my fit and watch my back? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley

Appia Nappia 879	Posted - 2014.06.08 18:34:00 - [21] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: I don't know, Appia. That's a serious nerf to CalScouts, and it'd likely eliminate the role of CalScout as "Scout Hunter". CalScout Scan Precision (Current : Proposed) 40.0 : 40.0 dB - Base 27.0 : 36.0 dB - Base + Max Passives 21.6 : 27.4 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(1) 17.9 : 21.6 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(2) 15.8 : 18.9 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(3) 14.9 : 17.4 dB - Base + Max Passives + cPE(4) Proposed Scan Profile (All Scouts, Prototype Cloak On : Off) 31.5 : 35.0 dB - Base 28.4 : 31.5 dB - Base + Max Passives 21.2 : 23.6 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (1) 16.7 : 18.5 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (2) 14.0 : 15.6 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (3) 13.3 : 14.7 dB - Base + Max Passives + Complex Damp (4) I presently hunt other Scouts using 3 precision enhancers (16 dB). I'm not much good at killing things, but I'm good at spotting all but the most committed Scouts. If this new model is adopted, I'll be downgraded to 19 dB. Any Scout with 2 damps and even a basic cloak can sneak right past me. And if I fully sacrifice my ck.0 to run 4 precision enhancers, any Scout running 3 damps will eat my lunch; not to mention every other combatant on the field. So ... as a CalScout, what will I do? Will I hunt Scouts poorly or will I tank my fit and watch my back? How would this change anything, I ask this from the perspective of a Cal-Scout, You know I have a proto Cal-Scout and I've had the scanning mods all at level 5 for all of uprising and the majority of Open Beta. It would be literally the exact same module-to module as before hotfix alpha. Only Gallente would be getting a "nerf" by being brought on to the same scanning level as Amarr and Minmatar. As as Cal Scout you would run you suit exactly the same way you did 2 weeks ago. Secretly Appia Vibbia If you can read my signature... I'm on the wrong alt.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1512	Posted - 2014.06.08 18:59:00 - [22] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: How would this change anything, I ask this from the perspective of a Cal-Scout, You know I have a proto Cal-Scout and I've had the scanning mods all at level 5 for all of uprising and the majority of Open Beta. It would be literally the exact same module-to module as before hotfix alpha. Only Gallente would be getting a "nerf" by being brought on to the same scanning level as Amarr and Minmatar. As as Cal Scout you would run you suit exactly the same way you did 2 weeks ago. This is an optimization question and it comes to down to cost / benefit. At the moment, CalScouts are a valuable asset to a squad because they can offer something others cannot. I am no slayer and I'm extremely squishy, but my squadmates are happy to have me along because of the valuable reconnaissance I can share. What would come of my value-to-squad if my reconnaissance skills were easily substituted? What would come of my value-to-squad if my reconnaissance skills were easily countered? My value would be diminished; no question. Optimization dictates that a Logi replace me. He can serve the squad in much greater capacity (i.e. more gear) and at much lower risk (i.e. 3x my HP). He can scan anything that I can scan, and he can do it at lower opportunity cost to the squad. When your Field Commander asks "What do you run?" he is really asking an optimization question: "What can you do better than any other role, such that I may maximize your utility to squad and team?" Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 7995	Posted - 2014.06.08 20:49:00 - [23] - Quote 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. CCP Logibro // Patron Saint of Logistics // Distributor of Nanites (a¦á_a¦á)

Appia Nappia 881	Posted - 2014.06.08 21:11:00 - [24] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Bravo, Charlie, Delta. w/e. You guys got the tables Secretly Appia Vibbia If you can read my signature... I'm on the wrong alt.
Haerr Legio DXIV 779	Posted - 2014.06.08 21:33:00 - [25] - Quote I like it Appia, here is a table preset with 4% efficacy bonus to enhancers for CalScouts and no dampening bonus to Gal. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YePa18hFPeky8V-YQmnv5s4BJW3vcrBHWRgV6LxMLJQ/edit?usp=sharing slowdown on hit...
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2125	Posted - 2014.06.08 21:37:00 - [26] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. 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 This is an idea i first saw from Cat Merc and it works so well that it should be our model for bonusing races & roles. Approaching the assault role problem this way yields good results - there's a couple of good threads following up this line of thought on the DUST forums. PSN: RationalSpark
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2126	Posted - 2014.06.08 21:43:00 - [27] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: Appia Nappia wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Here are some numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJp1KcwzCLy4WICjpx49jUA46uqKulFvAakmyvxcbJc/edit?usp=sharing ~~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. What might work best in the long run is both: generic suit operation based bonuses for roles and specific module-dependent bonuses for races. This way a scout could be a scout but the different races would have specific strengths if they chose to invest fitting slots to exploit their racial bonuses. PSN: RationalSpark
Appia Nappia 885	Posted - 2014.06.08 21:58:00 - [28] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: This is an optimization question and it comes to down to cost / benefit. At the moment, CalScouts are a valuable asset to a squad because they can offer something others cannot. I am no slayer and I am extremely squishy, but my squadmates are happy to have me along because of the valuable reconnaissance I can share. What would come of my value-to-squad if my reconnaissance skills were easily substituted? What would come of my value-to-squad if my reconnaissance skills were easily countered? My value would be diminished; no question. Optimization dictates that a Logi replace me. He can serve the squad in much greater capacity (i.e. more gear) and at much lower risk (i.e. 3x my HP). He can scan anything that I can scan, and he can do it at less cost to the squad. When your Field Commander asks "What do you run?" he is really asking an optimization question: "What can you do better than any other role, such that I may optimize your utility to squad and team?" I know its wordy response, but I hope it makes sense. TL;DR: Readily Available Substitutes Why not just replace you with someone that can run the same suit and have gun game? Seems likes active scanners, with higher precision and shorter duration and longer cool down weren't the right way to go. Still you have short-range 360-¦ that picks up med frames with no modules. 1 complex range amp and you have just under the area (sq M) of the standard active scanner. I've explained my views of how scanning combats tactics and dampening protects those tactics. You can get under 20dB precision If that stupid gal-logi precision bonus didn't exist it would be so very valuable. But I seriously don't understand your concern. 2 damps and a complex cloak is the same as it was before Alpha. What changed between now and then to Caldari that makes you feel that 1.8 pre-alpha would make you feel useless and easily replaceable? The numbers are basically the exact same Secretly Appia Vibbia If you can read my signature... I'm on the wrong alt.
JoeShmoe From Kokomo Third Rock From The Sun 1	Posted - 2014.06.08 22:01:00 - [29] - Quote Just drop the bonuses period. Mimintar knife and hack. Amarr run and jump forever. Just use different modules for Gal/Cal. Mimintar was speed so give it back. Make cal/gal hack. give the other race melee. CCP favors Caldari. I dont really see them fixxin any Caldari suit as all caldari suits are OP
Floyd20 Azizora L.O.T.I.S. 48	Posted - 2014.06.08 22:16:00 - [30] - Quote 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. this swings the damp v cal scout precision way towards damping.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1524	Posted - 2014.06.08 22:43:00 - [31] - Quote Floyd20 Azizora wrote: 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 Scouts, then why run a CalScout? If the goal is to recon non-Scouts, wouldn't I be better off running on a GalScout? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1525	Posted - 2014.06.08 23:03:00 - [32] - Quote DPLAK; let's play this through ... Assumption: Detected Scout = Dead Scout = All Scouts Run 2 Damps = Scout Scan Profile 18 dB Counters: GalLogi Scanner (15 db), CalScout 4 cPE (17 dB) Decision: 4 cPE CalScout has 250 total HP; scans constantly; dies constantly; does little else. GalLogi + AS has 1000+ total HP; scans frequently; dies infrequently; does other stuff. Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 1841	Posted - 2014.06.08 23:04:00 - [33] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Floyd20 Azizora wrote: 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? 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? The REAL Internet King
Appia Nappia 887	Posted - 2014.06.08 23:12:00 - [34] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Floyd20 Azizora wrote: 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? 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. Secretly Appia Vibbia If you can read my signature... I'm on the wrong alt.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1526	Posted - 2014.06.08 23:23:00 - [35] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: 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. Assumption: Detected Scout = Dead Scout = All Scouts Run 2 Damps = Scout Scan Profile 18 dB Counters: GalLogi Scanner (15 db), CalScout 4 cPE (17 dB) Optimization: 4 cPE CalScout has 250 total HP; scans constantly; dies constantly; does little else. GalLogi + AS has 1000+ total HP; scans frequently; dies infrequently; does other stuff. Outcome: 4 cPE (17dB) CalScout shelved; sub-optimal; why use? 3 cPE (19dB) CalScout picks up Scouts w/1 Damp; all Scouts run 2 Damps; why use? 2 cPE (22dB) CalScout picks up Scouts w/1 Damp; all Scouts run 2 Damps; why use? 1 cPE (27dB) CalScout picks up Scouts w/0 Damp; all Scouts run 2 Damps; why use? Conclusion: If all Scouts run 2 Damps, then CalScout =/= Scout Hunter Question: If CalScout =/= Scout Hunter, then what can it do better than other Scouts (i.e. Role)? * Shield Tank? We don't like it when Scouts HP tank; aren't CalScouts supposed to do eWar? * Scan Non-Scouts? Why not use a GalScout, isn't its max Scan Range substantially better? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1529	Posted - 2014.06.09 01:18:00 - [36] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 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? 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 (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 sacrifice pays returns; the CalScout's sacrifice does not. What if the CalScout w/4 precision enhancers scanned at 15 dB? Such that he'd pick you up if he happened to catch you uncloaked? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Appia Nappia 887	Posted - 2014.06.09 01:52:00 - [37] - Quote 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 Secretly Appia Vibbia If you can read my signature... I'm on the wrong alt.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1531	Posted - 2014.06.09 02:36:00 - [38] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: 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 ... Holding all else constant, change Min slot layout from 3/3 to 2/4. Puzzle solved in fewer moves. Thoughts? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
IgniteableAura The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance 1212	Posted - 2014.06.09 05:45:00 - [39] - Quote I don't understand the rational behind all scouts needing to have the option of radar invisibility. It should only be allowed on a single scout. If you want that option you should be forced to run gal. If you want to hunt scouts you should be forced to run cal. Giving the range bonus to gal and nerfing cal precision will only enhance the slayer builds. They will be a medium+ frame slayer that's full on brick tanked. If it requires 4cPE to detect all scouts. It won't be used....gal logi will instead. You don't need 360 perma scans, only a 1 second snapshot scan in a 250 radius. Which is already doable at 15dB No matter how powerful a scan precision you have, anything less than 40m is worthless. Youtube
Velociraptor antirrhopus Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2014.06.09 05:55:00 - [40] - Quote i appia prove My thoughts on Hotfix Alpha: First I noticed a scout running from my AR. Then a heavy. Then a COMBAT RIFLE USER. CCP +1

voidfaction Void of Faction 265	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:11:00 - [41] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Appia Nappia wrote: 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). Ill trade you my gal slot layout for your min slot layout if gal keeps the dampening bonus. lol Gallente H/L 2/2 2/3 3/3 1x cShield 2x cPrecision 2x cProfile 1x cReactive cCloak I don't want to be a hacker/sprinter/melee ninja. I want to be a ghost and a hunter. mid level precision would give me situational awareness while I hunt hidden for shimering scouts with my eyes. I leave you to your PC scout balance battle now.
Haerr Legio DXIV 782	Posted - 2014.06.09 10:04:00 - [42] - Quote Shotty wrote: When your Field Commander asks "What do you run?" he is really asking an optimization question: "What can you do better than any other role, such that I may maximize your utility to squad and team?" This is part of the problem with the scanning mechanics; in PUBs you can GÇÿescalateGÇÖ the scanning vs. dampening game. Against any competative players you start off 'fully escalted', leaving the Amarr and Minmatar suits in a bad place on account of the really strong bonuses on the Caldari and Gallente suits. I asked this in the Barbershop so I'll just repost it here: I have two questions / discussion points: How do you guys feel about adding falloff to GÇPScan PrecisionGÇ£? How would you guys feel about differentiating between: MiniMap: ((Hidden)) [Personal] Blip [>Shared] Blip [Personal] Direction Arrow [>Shared] Direction Arrow HUD: ((Hidden)) [Personal] Chevron out of line of sight [>Shared] Chevron out of line of sight [Personal] Chevron in line of sight [>Shared] Chevron in line of sight Maybe limit something depending on +/- dB or per scanner type? Other suggestions? slowdown on hit...
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. 1596	Posted - 2014.06.09 10:09:00 - [43] - Quote Appia Nappia wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. 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 Appia..... I think you just stole my heart.... PSN ID: AlbelNox2569 Cross Atu for CPM1
Velociraptor antirrhopus Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 186	Posted - 2014.06.11 13:47:00 - [44] - Quote Good job forum warriors Keep this up and I might actually skill into a scout class soon My thoughts on Hotfix Alpha: First I noticed a scout running from my AR. Then a heavy. Then a COMBAT RIFLE USER. CCP +1
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1674	Posted - 2014.06.11 14:37:00 - [45] - Quote Velociraptor antirrhopus wrote: Good job forum warriors Keep this up and I might actually skill into a scout class soon Appia, this is how you know something's wrong. Think about it. Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p 398	Posted - 2014.06.11 14:40:00 - [46] - Quote if were switching scout bonuses to module bonuses, can we make the min scout get a 55% bonus per level to kin cat efficacy, and introduce a speed cap? That would be awesome, thanks 26-2 ambush with militia minmitar heavy, no relevant skills 9-3 proto minmitar scout Scount OP nurf it to grownd
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2321	Posted - 2014.06.11 15:25:00 - [47] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: One Eyed King wrote: 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? 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 :-) Appia Nappia wrote: 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 Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1679	Posted - 2014.06.11 15:46:00 - [48] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: 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 I can think of no drawbacks. An even trade, PG-wise. Would likely help Minmatar Scout. I'm in favor. Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 1924	Posted - 2014.06.11 16:38:00 - [49] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: 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. The REAL Internet King
Floyd20 Azizora L.O.T.I.S. 51	Posted - 2014.06.11 17:02:00 - [50] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Cross Atu wrote: 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. that's a general issue with high slot utility. moving something to high slot could help a lot in preventing hybrid tanking.

Master Smurf Nos Nothi 512	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:56:00 - [51] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Cross Atu wrote: 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. This is the exact reason I think a move lioke this would only help a minny scout. I approve. "Shine bright like a diamond"
mr musturd 0uter.Heaven 515	Posted - 2014.06.11 19:02:00 - [52] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Appia Nappia wrote: 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). 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
Floyd20 Azizora L.O.T.I.S. 57	Posted - 2014.06.11 19:54:00 - [53] - Quote mr musturd wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Appia Nappia wrote: 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). 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 a is not a sensible option, as each suit is meant to be different, not have 3/4 have 4 lows and 2 highs. and scouts base scan profile is already lower then its precision. and why are people compaining because they have to invest heavily to be inscannable? give min scouts a little more base speed, maybe up their base hacking mod another 0.05 above the rest.
Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p 408	Posted - 2014.06.12 01:01:00 - [54] - Quote codebreakers to high slot +1 26-2 ambush with militia minmitar heavy, no relevant skills 9-3 proto minmitar scout Scount OP nurf it to grownd
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2326	Posted - 2014.06.12 03:33:00 - [55] - Quote Thanks for the current (and hopefully continued) response regarding codebreakers. I want to wade in (with a request that no one let this drag the thread too far off topic) and comment on them in regards to the Logi line (since their the next most likely role to focus on hacking). Amarr - Uplink buffed and most combat oriented, use of more than one codebreaker unlikely, codebreaker shift relatively negligible. Cal - Quite a few high slots, this is a net gain for the Cal, and honestly with a trade off to it's buffer tank I don't think it damages logi internal balance. Min - Even slots, mobility, net gain for the min as low slot competition being alleviated helps potential diversity of fittings. Gal - The greatest loser of the logi considering their slot layout, however their tank being low slot based this may actually allow more options for fitting codebreakers rather than stacking a dual tank. On initial inspection this change would be good for the Logi line. /now back to more scout feedback (and thanks again) Cross Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 18	Posted - 2014.06.12 04:50:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: 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. thx logibro your and rattati are truely gods when my luck is down i pray to you guys for dumb rassberys "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
Lunatic Kota TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 174	Posted - 2014.06.12 06:50:00 - [57] - Quote I've put a lot of thought into the Gal vs. Cal ** going on. First off, I run Cal Scout and I run 1-2 Precision Mods ALWAYS. It use to me off getting one shot by Gal scouts that I couldn't see but honestly, THAT IS MY COUNTER. If you want your facking 400 ehp and your invisibility then I'll * but honestly, if you are running truly invisible then you're paper and not that scary. A team of Gal Scouts is a pain, yes but, It isn't always the best option. There honestly is a counter for everything in this game just people are too stupid to figure it out. As to the bonuses to modules, I approve x10000000. And anyone who sees this as a nerf to their precious playstyle is more than likely crutching it up to the point to where a ****** monkey with a rocket launcher would be viable. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly. -David Hackworth
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 345	Posted - 2014.06.12 08:04:00 - [58] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: Appia Nappia wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Here are some numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nJp1KcwzCLy4WICjpx49jUA46uqKulFvAakmyvxcbJc/edit?usp=sharing ~~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. you have them backwards imo. gallente would make better use of precision amps since they focus on close combat. caldari would use range amps as a early warning system against approaching enemies
I-Shayz-I I-----I 3660	Posted - 2014.06.12 11:32:00 - [59] - Quote I've been saying this for ages. Thank you for providing the numbers 7162 wp with a Repair Tool! List of Legion Feedback Threads!
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1735	Posted - 2014.06.12 15:52:00 - [60] - Quote @ Appia Now that Bravo's locked down, let's get back to business :-) Here's how I see Scouts * Gal - Ghost * Cal - Recon * Min - Ninja * Amr - Biotic -- or -- Tank Here's my Counter Proposal * Gal - Ghost (bonus to profile dampeners and cloak duration) * Cal - Recon (bonus to scan precision and range) * Min - Ninja (bonus to hacks and knives) * Amr - Biotic (bonus to all biotics) -- or -- Tank (bonus to armor penalty) Notes * Keeps things simple (easy to understand and easy to pitch to Rattati). * Solves the CalScout / MinScout problem using your figures. * Shifts the CalScout from role of Scout Hunter to role of Recon Expert. * Permits the GalScout a meaningful bonus that will keep him fun and competitive. * Moves discussions forward on the topic of Amarr Scout. Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley

JP Acuna Pendejitos Zero-Day 185	Posted - 2014.06.13 00:02:00 - [61] - Quote I also made a post suggesting this in a scout feedback thread some time ago, but it was completely ignored :( It's the perfect way to make scouts fill their slots with the right modules and avoid brick tanking.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.