|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
18860
   |
Posted - 2014.11.08 22:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
The only reason to go Gallogi is to scan scouts who are dampening slightly - if they don't damp then a proto scanner will get them, and if they dampen properly not even the Gallogi focused will get them.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Currently challenging CCP Rattati for the queef
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
18863
|
Posted - 2014.11.08 23:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
DarthPlagueis TheWise wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:The only reason to go Gallogi is to scan scouts who are dampening slightly - if they don't damp then a proto scanner will get them, and if they dampen properly not even the Gallogi focused will get them. I forgot if Caldari can even get under a focused. I think they can. What you guys fail to understand is we don't have to use the Focused just to pick up scouts. With any of the other proto scanners, even the slightest lack of dampening will get picked up by a Gal Logi.
All scouts can evade the proto scanner.
2 damps on a Gal/Cal scout will do it, 3 on the others. That''s hardly crippling levels of dampening for the Gal/Cal.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Currently challenging CCP Rattati for the queef
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
18863
|
Posted - 2014.11.08 23:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Varoth Drac wrote:I-Shayz-I wrote:The gallente bonus is terrible because all it allows you to do is scan the most dampened of dampened scouts. In other words, it's the hard counter against sneaky scouts and you'll be able to track them for longer before you have to scan again. It does nothing for you if the majority of your enemies are assaults, heavies, or mlt suits. I think the Gal logi bonus should be changed from precision to cooldown reduction or scan angle increase. The precision bonus makes it too difficult for mediums to dampen, and, other than the focused scanner, active scanners shouldn't be used to scan scouts. It doesn't fit the design of the scanners or of scouts. Scout scanning should be left to passive scans and focused scanners. Maybe improve logi precision (passive) and add an advanced focused scanner. What do you think?
Why shouldn't active scanners be used to scan scouts?
Why should scout scans be used to pick up scouts? So you have to use a scout to counter a scout? That's really not good balance. Frankly, of the two scan designs, active scanners make far more sense for picking up scouts. Unlike passive scans which are 360 degrees and permanent, active scanners only scan part of the time with a cooldown and only scan in a very narrow angle. They have huge drawbacks compared to scout passive scans, but they typically have worse precision, even with the focused. Not only that but they even tell you when you've been scanned.
Gallogi precision doesn't make it impossible for medium frames to evade scans - scout frames will do a better job scanning mediums anyway. What it partially does is make scouts dampen more to evade them (although they should be more worried about the invisible scout scans).
The precision on active scanners should be improved rather than nerfed, if anything.
DarthPlagueis TheWise wrote:I-Shayz-I wrote:The gallente bonus is terrible because all it allows you to do is scan the most dampened of dampened scouts. In other words, it's the hard counter against sneaky scouts and you'll be able to track them for longer before you have to scan again. It does nothing for you if the majority of your enemies are assaults, heavies, or mlt suits. **** you too Shayz. With a metagame that scouts dominate, I really don't see why being able to scan scouts for the whole team is a "terrible bonus." Keep babysitting dumb deaf and blind fatties while the real men actually contribute valuable intel to the team. *shakes head* See, this sort of attitude is exactly why I was converted to the Amarrian faith from my dirty Minmatar origins.
It's not like it can actually scan scouts, though.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Currently challenging CCP Rattati for the queef
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
18865
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 00:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Varoth Drac wrote:
However, I quite like the idea of making active scanners good at precision, poor in other areas, scans. Whereas passives can be constant, 360 scans but with poor precision. This way logis with skill can combat scouts without completely shutting them down. Scouts would still be encouraged to dampen to avoid passives in cqc, a problem mediums wouldn't have to worry too much about as they engage at long range. Scouts would still have the cqc advantage if they succeed in isolating enemies. Mediums could avoid this weakness by fitting damps.
This is exactly what I feel active scanners should be used for. With the narrow angle you have to have a good idea of where the person you're hunting is before you can find them, and then you can only paint them for a few seconds before you have to deal with a long cooldown.
That's ideally suited to being a balanced counter to scouts. A scout can still flank and evade scans because you need to know roughly where the scout is to scan it, but if you have a solid suspicion that a scout is in a specific area you can ping it for a short confirmation of their presence.
Quote:
Perhaps Rattati can improve ewar by reducing active scan durations, increasing cooldowns, but improving precision. Passive scans should have their precision nerfed (maybe) but maintain current ranges (buff assault to 15m).
Looking at the focused as a model here, precision on that still isn't good enough to pick up a modestly dampened scout, but it has a hefty 40 second cooldown. I'm not really sure that cooldown seriously needs to be increased anymore, and it only lights up the target for a couple of seconds anyway.
None of the scanners apart from the proximity (which is a weird and awful piece of kit) have cooldown times that can be considered short, also. I'm not convinced the proto flux needs the longest range -and- the widest angle, though. I feel the proximity scanner should have the widest angle (although it should have the shortest range, too).
Precision on passive scans isn't really a problem, I think. But active scanners should be able to beat that, because active scanners sacrifice so much more for it.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Currently challenging CCP Rattati for the queef
|
|
|
| |
|