DUST Search - @ CPM0, CPM1 - Seeking feedback on a Scout Proposal

Adipem Nothi wrote:

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 (and others) 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?

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1237	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:10:00 - [31] - Quote Wall of Text Inserted. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2222039#post2222039 The Black Jackal for CPM1
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2151	Posted - 2014.06.23 07:36:00 - [32] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: o7 Pokey Thanks for weighing in! On to those questions ... Pokey Dravon wrote: -Snip- Currently, yes. Alternatives include applying the bonus directly to KinCats or redirecting the bonus toward fitting reduction. We opted against the first to leave more options open to the user. We opted against the second as we believe Rattati intends to overhaul resource requirements. Pokey Dravon wrote: -Snip- Absolutely an option. We leaned in favor of the current alternative as (1) we felt ewar specializations should only be cut so many ways, (2) we thought the eve-minded 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. Not to say we're deadset on the current approach, but should he prove too strong we can easily fix by dialing back the bonus. * As an aside we tried to localize these changes such that they remain independent from the state of other frames. We fully expect Rattati to first fix Assaults. I think keeping it open to all biotics is appropriate. I'm not a professional scout by any means but I personally prefer more stamina over more sprint speed, but that's just personal play style and I think players should have that option. Totally understand your concerns about cutting up the EWAR too much. I think the primary reason is that I think it limits the Caldari Scout to being able to scan down just about anything, but far more limited in range. The Amarr would then fill the wide range, weaker scans. I think this would help a lot of players reservations about how they deal with the Caldari Scout's passive scans. Again I'm no expert and this is just a concept I've been thinking about on my own Gallente Scout: Very Low Profile - Average Scans - Average Range Caldari Scout: Average Profile - Very High Scans - Average Range Amarr Scout: Average Profile - Average Scans - Very High Range Minmatar Scout: Doing their own thing because stabbing people is more fun than watching the mini map. This would allow the Caldari to cover objective areas with very high level scans, but still in a limited area. This allows them to pick up more heavily dampened units but only in the immediate area, meaning high detection but lower time to react. The Amarr on the other hand pick up less dampened units over a very large area, meaning less detection but longer time to react. This would be more for detecting more so medium and heavy frames that are undampened, but not enough precision to pick up dampened scouts. Minmatar would then be able to dodge most scans save for higher tiered active scanners and heavy precision enhanced Caldari Scouts. The difference being that while the Caldari could spot them, the Minmatar move quickly enough that by the time they're in range, they're still capable of getting the kill if the Caldari doesn't react fast/well enough. The Min Scout would however be able to dodge the typical Amarr Scout, meaning it could still move around undetected and only be seen once its close to a Caldari Scout. Thoughts? 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? 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. Like my ideas? Pokey Dravon for CPM1
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 2167	Posted - 2014.06.23 13:49:00 - [33] - 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
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 591	Posted - 2014.06.23 14:10:00 - [34] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 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. 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. Heading over to Destiny Beta and a few others Hit me up for Skype and PSN
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 1426	Posted - 2014.06.23 14:15:00 - [35] - Quote Bayeth Mal wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: 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. 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. I put up the option of a scrambler pistol range increase for the Amarr (5% a level) as an alternate option. It's the only sidearm bonus I could think of that would mirror the Main NK bonus without making the ScP overpowered. Would love another 10m on my pistol. Knowledge is power
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 2168	Posted - 2014.06.23 14:15:00 - [36] - 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
Appia Vibbia Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3012	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:25:00 - [37] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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? 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. Underline: To add to Adipem's response. Back in 1.4/1.5 after shared team was taken out and the scout was still in a bad place, a lot of Medium Frame users were taking over the scout balance discussion and brought up the topic of scouts sharing scans. To the dismay of the scout specialists the medium frame users wanted to relegate the class into a walking active scanner. Despite it being a staple of the role, infiltration and assassination are hated by people nearly as much as the sniper rifle's existence. Most people don't want to see a scout get any kills and their only purpose is to do counter-espionage. Having a suit that only has the purpose of staying alive so it gives you intelligence isn't fun, isn't balanced, and isn't skillful. Turns out, though, that passive scans were shared the whole time. The reason no-one noticed was because (1) Installations and Objectives still provided 0db Precision scans for about 25 meters out. And Installations and Objectives shared it to a whole team. (2) The limited 10m scan radius (down from 25m before Uprising, currently 20m) and 15 if you were a Gallente Scout meant you needed 1 complex range amplifier and a second range amplifier of another level just to get your passive scans to extend past that first, tiny circle on the tacnet- which happens to be 25m. It wasn't until the Scout base was increased to 16m that it was confirmed passive scans were shared in a squad. Even then most people didn't believe that it worked that way (thankfully) Italic: Your TacNet is only 100m radius, outside 200m most suits just don't render. If the game actually rendered all players all the time then they'd be visible chevrons no matter where you are on the map. A sniper could zoom in on where their teammate is and see all the glowing chevrons from outside that range, assuming they were not standing on a surface installation that blocks rendering from happening. Bold: There are a lot of cool, interesting, dynamic, and impressive creations on how to balance the game. Much of them, like your assumption and hypothetical could not be done via hotfixes. That's what the presentation is about. Changing Scouts now to balance them, instead of another 8 month wait. Appia Vibbia for CPM1 AppiaVibbia(at)gmail(dot)com AKA Nappia, AKA Mathppia
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 608	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:46:00 - [38] - Quote 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.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 2174	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:51:00 - [39] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2153	Posted - 2014.06.23 17:21:00 - [40] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 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 (and others) 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? 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. I think it would really appeal to those Scouts looking for a tankier suit that is designed more for fighting larger frames that can be scanned down, with the HP to actually pull that off. They would however be the most susceptible to enemy scans, thus making them easily spottable, and the lack of precise scans would make them weak against other scouts. This is of course going under the assumption that Assaults get a serious buff, as this proposed Amarr Scout clearly is the bridge between the two roles. 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? CPM1 Question. Going off this thread alone and those who have posted their opinions, Cross seems to see most eye-to-eye with me. Glancing over those who disagree, it tends to be a disagreement on specific issues that vary from person to person. I'm at work so I can't really read too deeply right now, but I'll try to figure out who I differ from the most probably on my lunch hour. Like my ideas? Pokey Dravon for CPM1

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 609	Posted - 2014.06.23 17:35:00 - [41] - Quote 1. @ Brick tanked GalScouts: Well, this is a straight up nerf to Gallente and Caldari Scouts. So if Assault-Scouts are a problem before they'll be less of a problem afterwards. I don't think this change will put everything into it's final place, but I'm a fan of iterative balancing. There'll likely be a hotfix delta and echo, so there'll be more time to change things as required. 2. @Secondary bonus: I'm happy with one bonus per suit for Amarr, Caldari and Gallente plus the role bonus to cloaking. Minmatar, well, give them a third bonus if they want...
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 2176	Posted - 2014.06.23 18:12:00 - [42] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2155	Posted - 2014.06.23 18:33:00 - [43] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 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) 1. Yes, multiple iterations are best. I'd suggest moving forward with keeping the stamina and giving them the bonus to armor, see how the scan dynamic plays out and see if Amarr needs more or not. 2. Well thats somewhat the point. Passive scans are on constantly, you can be fighting while they're on, and they're omnidirectional. A lot of advantages over that of the Active Scanner, so the active scanner does need some advantages other than just precision. At that level of design it really comes down to grinding out the numbers to get true balance. However for conceptual purposes I think giving shared passive scans the ability to be enhanced at a sacrifice is pretty reasonable. Like my ideas? Pokey Dravon for CPM1
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 1415	Posted - 2014.06.25 09:06:00 - [44] - Quote I freely admit to not being a balance guy. I envy those that seem to be able to look at a proposed set of numbers without play testing and knowing it'll work. That being said these people are far outnumbered by those who think they're one of these rare individuals. So my preferred method is for small measured changes done gradually, which with Rattati so on top of the hotfixes is now much easier to do and see how they play out. I see nothing that duly alarms me in the proposed numbers here but as I admit I'm unlikely to spot a potential problem until I play with those numbers. Then I can tell you exactly what's wrong or right. Another point I'd like to make is that it's not the job of the CPM to do balance work anyway. We're not game designers, indeed anyone working in the industry is ruled ineligible to stand by the CPM White Paper. We can push for a proposed idea or seek clarification from CCP as to if can be done in the first place. We act as a conduit between CCP and the players and advise CCP in matters that would have an impact to players. The last thing we should be expected to be is game designers. CPM1 Candidate CEO of DUST University
Asha Starwind 899	Posted - 2014.06.30 00:40:00 - [45] - Quote Most of these changes I agree and are point except the fact of the double nerf of the Cal Scout, as the problem with it has been identified as being shared vision with the passive scans, and okay on it's own. So far proposed changes are: Min scout: Overall Buff Ama scout: Rework/Overall Buff Gall Scout: Lateral/No effective change Cal Scout: Overall Nerf Unless this is a witch hunt don't mind me [center][/center]
Bormir1r Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 434	Posted - 2014.07.07 17:28:00 - [46] - Quote Dalmont Legrand wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Contrasting that, the Minmatar Scout already has a specialized role on the battlefield that crosses Assassination with Fast-Hacking, adding on a biotics bonus might seem like a good idea at first but I think we're missing a golden opportunity to fine-tune it to what it's already capable of without having to resort to adding another bonus to further split it's specialization. Feel free to convince me of otherwise if you disagree with what I've said here. Assassination? You can't do it when Cal Scouts light you up from 50m away. Fast hacking is the ONLY useful aspect of the Minmatar Scout in PC. That's it. Anything else is something that a Gal Scout with a Shotgun can do better. It needs attention. The MAIN problem with the Amarr and Min scouts is the absolute scanning superiority of the Cal Scout. REMOVE SHARED SQUAD VISION First it was "remove team vision" now squad vision? What else? Remove scans and passive scans because they scan you? I don't care if someone scans me, because scanning is half way through; you still need to kill target. I agree with Ghost that Min scouts need a better mechanism at staying damped. I believe we can use the cloak as this mechanism. We can leave the base profile for Min scouts as it is, but in addition to the current ideas of buffs for the Minja, we can have a specific dampening bonus that the Min Scout gets with the Cloak. This would help Min scouts get away from Cal/Shared Scans temporarily, enough to survive, while also allowing Cal Scouts to hunt them down whenever Min scouts aren't not cloaked. This number of base profile reduction provided exclusively for the Min Scout would have to be substantially large, (say 20-40%?) This bonus would increase with higher tier cloaks, just as it now, but the Min scouts get a larger dampening bonus than other scouts from the cloak. This idea advocates for the "hit and run" tactics that are associated with the role of the Min Scout. What do you guys think? "One does not simply" run 11.12 m/s. Oh wait, mk.0 Scouts do it... Oops.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page