DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] EWAR Ideas

CCP Rattati wrote:

Vell0cet wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

I'm going to throw one final design that I have had evaluated. It is possible to penalize one class over the other. So we can do

if scout then worse plate penalty for example.

Another thing is that we are able to focus the penalty on strafing specifically.

So the idea would be to penalize forward movement less on "normal plates", but severely decrease strafe speed, and more on the scout than other classes. Reactives and ferros would not incur these hard penalties.

This would mean Amarr Sentinels become very unwieldy, bastions like they were supposed to be, but weak to being headshotted at range, and brick tanked scouts will always have speed less than equal ehp assaults.

Let the fireworks begin.

Make a new stat on all suits called mass. Speed/agility would be derived from mass. Light suits have low mass, heavies high mass. Plates would add a fixed amount of mass to the suits (except feroscale). This would heavily penalize the movement of low mass suits and less so on heavy frames (as a relative percent change). Likewise shield extenders would increase signature profile. Add a feroscale analogue for shield extenders without the penalty. This would more closely follow EVE.

Even if not directly added to the stats, that's exactly how I intend to design the penalties, and share the calculations.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 13 post(s)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 832	Posted - 2014.11.06 18:03:00 - [1] - Quote I strongly disagree with putting scans at a base value of 15 m for all frames. In general I'm strongly against the proliferation of ewar. The wallhack diminishes the amount of player skill required and puts more emphasis on knowing your scan-tables. If you think scout ewar is too strong I'd suggest keeping it at a default 10 m for non-scouts and reverting it to pre-1.8 15 m for scouts. Alternatively I'd trade you 15 m default scan range for a 50% nerf to all other scan range bonuses (modules, range amplification and CalScout suit command). The gist of it is that less passive scanning is straight up better for everyone in the game, even scouts.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 832	Posted - 2014.11.06 21:53:00 - [2] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Remove all scan! To me that would be the ultima ratio if nothing else works. I'd prefer trying to limit all scans either in duration, cooldown or range. Both passive and active scans. The core of the game is a shooter. Not a scanning table.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 833	Posted - 2014.11.08 14:20:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I'm going to throw one final design that I have had evaluated. It is possible to penalize one class over the other. So we can do if scout then worse plate penalty for example. Another thing is that we are able to focus the penalty on strafing specifically. So the idea would be to penalize forward movement less on "normal plates", but severely decrease strafe speed, and more on the scout than other classes. Reactives and ferros would not incur these hard penalties. This would mean Amarr Sentinels become very unwieldy, bastions like they were supposed to be, but weak to being headshotted at range, and brick tanked scouts will always have speed less than equal ehp assaults. Let the fireworks begin. Make a new stat on all suits called mass. Speed/agility would be derived from mass. Light suits have low mass, heavies high mass. Plates would add a fixed amount of mass to the suits (except feroscale). This would heavily penalize the movement of low mass suits and less so on heavy frames (as a relative percent change). Likewise shield extenders would increase signature profile. Add a feroscale analogue for shield extenders without the penalty. This would more closely follow EVE. Even if not directly added to the stats, that's exactly how I intend to design the penalties, and share the calculations. Different perspective on this: How would a person that didn't read the hotfix discussion pages come to understand this concept? Especially considering that this isn't how it used to work. I guess the person who designed the ewar system was originally thinking of a target audience that doesn't read the eve-wiki on every item they plan on fitting, that's my theory how we got the "if precision < signature and range < maximum range then scan"-design. While this has it's drawbacks I think the intention is worth keeping in mind. Can we maybe get a new mission statement for the discussion? So far we've mostly been brainstorming on stuff that may be fun, awesome or easy to implement, without directing it at a specific problem. While we're in the brainstorming mood: If you deconstructed a scout, assault and sentinel suit into a basic medium frame that has as many modules fit to it as necessary to achieve the base stats of a racial scout, assault and sentinel including lvl 5 operation, I believe you will arrive at a clear advantage for scouts in both the amounts of slots fitted and CPU/PG consumed. This I speculate is the main reason why we're unhappy with scouts and that then is why we're discussing ewar. So maybe we're unintentionally having an strawman-discussion.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 834	Posted - 2014.11.09 11:38:00 - [4] - Quote Blueprint For Murder wrote: this is the reason I am so adamant about sidearms only scouts for a fix. Remember how Scouts were fine / slightly UP before 1.8? I enjoyed being a scout back then because you absolutely had to get the drop on people to survive. Once seen you pretty much died instantly. What I'm trying to say is that it is well within the realm of possibilities to push the scout out of the assault role without taking away the light weapon slot. Pre 1.7 stats are proof of that.