|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2134
   |
Posted - 2014.06.21 20:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Greetings!
We Scouts have been fighting toiling over a polish proposal aimed to address common concerns and complaints on the topic of yours truly. We'd like to share with you our work-product in hopes of hearing your thoughts:
Google Doc: Scout Polish Proposal
* Last Updated: 2014.06.21 19:30 (version 4.2)
Please note that we've yet to reach consensus and are not ready to present the proposal "as-is" to Rattati. Perhaps with your input, we'll move it closer in the right direction, be it toward the Recycle Bin or toward CCP Rattatt :-)
Thank you for time. o7
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2138
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 21:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
o7 Appia
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to look over our proposal; its encouraging to hear that you like what you see.
To answer your question frankly, we're aiming to give hugs (rather than trade hugs) to Minmatar and Amarr Scouts. We hope of encourage diversity, as we believe these two to be far less used than the Gallente and Caldari. The number you see (1.375) was chosen as it returns the exact same hack speed progressions to which the Minmatar are presently accustomed. In essence, we moved things around such that they'd lose nothing, but gain a hug in the form a small biotic bonus.
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2143
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 02:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
o/ Cross
Thanks for looking over the proposal! I'll try to address your inquiries in order.
Conceptual Roles / Vision Statements
These are fun for discussion but beyond the scope of the proposal. They tend to differ wildly from one merc to the next. To slap a set of perspectives onto the proposal would draw attention away from the Objective. Each player has a different take on each of the four Scouts. If you tell me your vision, I'll tell you mine. :-)
Amarr
Glad you like it! No questions here ... moving along.
Minmatar
Mr Musturd would be proud. No questions here ... moving along.
Gallente
The proposal seeks to avoid changing competitive hiding/hunting values; that's is own ball of yarn and should be addressed separately. As for the motive behind the range bonus, we're simply trying to incentive use of ewar modules over "slay" modules while remaining within reasonable bounds.
Caldari
He'll have less advance warning when an enemy is inbound, and he'll have to move in closer to the enemy to recon for his squad. Being on your toes is part of being a Scout; we hope to make the CalScout's role at Recon a 'bit for engaging.
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2143
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 05:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
o7 Pokey
Thanks for weighing in! On to those questions ...
Pokey Dravon wrote:
The increase to Biotics is actually an idea I had also been tossing around for quite some time. Would this also include melee damage mods? I think overall this is a good choice for the Minmatar and would work well to offset their lack of eHP. The speed they would be capable of would be terrifying, but I think the low HP would properly balance this.
Currently, yes. Alternatives include applying the bonus directly to KinCats or redirecting the bonus to fitting reduction. We opted against the first to leave more options open to the user. We opted against the latter as we believe Rattati intends to overhaul resource requirements.
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Barring my comments on the Amarr/Caldari Scouts, one suggestion I heard which I found to be pretty interesting is to remove the range bonuses to Gal/Cal scouts and make the Amarr Scout have the big scan radius instead of the Gallente? If the more direct-combat approach makes the Amarr Scout too strong, how would you feel about instead giving them the range bonus like I mentioned in the Gal/Cal sections?
Absolutely an option. We leaned against the option as (1) we felt ewar specializations should only be cut so many ways, (2) we thought the eve-centric Amarr RP guys (TA, Aero, Magnus, etc) would be happier with a bonus to "light armor" and (3) there's serious demand for a brick-tanked Scout, and we don't want Gallente meeting 100% of that demand.
* As an aside, we fully expect Rattati to first fix Assaults. We tried to localize these changes such that they remain independent from the state of other frames.
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2157
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 19:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
@ Dalmont
With respect, we're having a hard time parsing your feedback. Would you mind posting in your native tongue? We'll get a Brother Scout to translate to English for us.
Thanks!
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2159
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 21:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote:
REMOVE SHARED SQUAD VISION
Rattati himself wrote:I would love looking at passive being not shared, a module that allows passive sharing, and a much wider radius with precision falloff.
But it's not christmas.
Type 1) Things within the realm of possibility
Type 2) Things outside the real of possibility
Type 3) All things
We've problems to solve; let's not waste time.
Might we all agree to limit this debate to Type 1 items?
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2167
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 13:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
1. Thoughts?
2. Also, have you guys had a discussion about how shared scans work? Do you think they're fair or not? Do they operate how they should?
3. I like the idea of shared scans though from my understanding the scans are more or less shared as long as you're withing like....200m of the scout doing the scanning? I could be wrong about that, but going under that assumption, how would you feel about passive scans only being shared if you are within the scan range of the scanning unit? For example if the scout who is scanning has a scan range of 50m, you have to be within 50m of that scout in order to receive the scan data.
I like how you think, Pokey. About those questions ...
1. Makes perfect sense and is certainly feasible; one of our own (Llast) is a proponent of a similar model:
CA Scout - Patrol Recon: Short Range / High Precision
AM Scout - Patrol Recon: High Range / Low Precision
GA Scout - Stealth Recon: No Scan Bonus
MN Scout - Assassin: No Scan Bonus
* Thanks to Black Jackal for upgrading our terminology :-)
** Llast, please feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.
While I very much like Llast's model, my primary concern remains in that there is strong demand for a brick-tanked Scout. The demand has always existed, and it will continue to exist despite any change we make. I'd personally prefer to see that demand met by Amarr rather than Gallente, because (1) it fits our original vision for Amarr and (2) I suspect it'd be better balanced. That said, our proposal is a work-in-progress; we will revisit the Amarr Bonus in light of your input.
2. Yes, extensively (2A). We celebrated the removal of shared passives in Uprising 1.4 anticipating that it would make our lives less miserable (at that time, there weren't many Scouts). At some point following the removal of "omniscient installations", we came to suspect that passives were again being shared. There's since been no consensus on the subject; some like it, most dislike it (2B). If you're asking if the mechanics are reliable, I would say largely yes; if you're asking if there's a better way, I would say yes again (2C). A module or piece of equipment which enabled shared passives would be awesome. But it's not Christmas (and it won't be for another 6 months). :-)
3. I'd personally prefer a gear-based solution, but both approaches would have their merits. Though this is Legion-talk, and my focus is the present.
Question for CPM Candidates:
There are numerous contradictory perspectives here among your peers. Given feedback thus far, which of your peers do you agree with most? And which least?
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2168
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 14:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bayeth Mal wrote:
Llast isn't the only one pushing for that, I've said similar.
My problem is the issue that in order to make the Cal threatening to the Gal it screws over the Min. But if we make Gal range and get rid of the ghost role, then there's nothing for Amarr short of HP bonuses.
Spot on. I think Broker's in the group as well. You raised another good point in terms interplay between Gallente and Caldari Scouts. The GalScout in the current model is better equipped to "hunter the hunter" ...
Look's like Rattati's forcing us from cover.
Strike while the iron's hot, right?
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2174
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 16:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:CA Scout - Patrol Recon: Short Range / High Precision
AM Scout - Patrol Recon: High Range / Low Precision
GA Scout - Stealth Recon: No Scan Bonus
MN Scout - Assassin: No Scan Bonus I also highly support this model. Whether it's a flat bonus to the stat per level or an efficacy bonus I don't mind, but this model would definitely sort out 3 of the 4 scouts and give each of them a unique role in battle.
Anyone other than me concerned that FoTM might trend to heavily dampened, brick-tanked GalScouts?
No one has addressed this point.
Also, what secondary bonus would you guys recommend for GalScouts? To catch you guys up to our internal debate, the bonus should meet the following criteria:
(1) will not be weaponry related (objective: don't step on assault toes)
(2) will not be armor or armor repair related (objective: discourage tank)
(3) will not be cloak related (in Aeon's words, a "shoe-horn")
(4) will augment a low slot module (all other bonuses point to slot strengths)
(5) will be sufficient to incentivize not running plates (objective: discourage tank)
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2176
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 18:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
1. I'm curious if removing the stamina bonus and giving the Amarr the Ferro/Adaptive bonus as well as the scan range would make them too strong. (?)
2. & 3. A module to share scans would be pretty legit. What if you had to be within X meters to pick up on the shared scans and have that be a pretty small range, and then adding modules would increase that range at which scans are shared?
1. The very same thought crossed my mind; yes, I think it'd be too strong; certainly too strong for one iteration.
2. Seems you'd be better off running an active scanner; though I've not thoroughly thought this through :-) th (x5)
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|