|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vitantur Nothus
Nos Nothi
1458
   |
Posted - 2015.01.04 16:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Seems boring by FPS standards. Does this job pay logi-grade WP for squad support reconnaissance?
Are you aware passive scans are pretty crap now? Recent nerfs to passive scans would likely have to be peeled back for this non-combatant to be effective. Cloak Blind, Direction Arrow Removal, Falloff
Are you prepared to produce four separate-but-equal flavors of recon? All four will need to be equally appealing to keep usage rates in equilibrium. |
Vitantur Nothus
Nos Nothi
1463
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 21:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
The Infected One wrote:I see that you've edited your intelligent post with a stupid one instead. I will still address the questions you've posted previously.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my initial concerns. I've second guessed myself on enumerating and debating the "reasons why not" when "reasons why" are yet to be established. Until we're provided data to the contrary, I see no basis at present for further, scout-specific nerfs. |
Vitantur Nothus
Nos Nothi
1468
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 23:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
I still fail to see the necessity of the restriction. Even if there were a very good reason to do it, there are only so many variations of sidearm scout available; this would severely restrict build diversity and skew usage rates. I run pistol + knives on my MinScout, but I also snipe in my CalScout and run swarms + remotes on my GalScout.
Build variety keeps things interesting. Why restrict ourselves to all but a handful of loadout options without having a damn good reason to do so?
PS: I'd strongly recommend against your skilling further into AM Scout. Its scans are pretty crap post-falloff, and the suit performs poorly compared to CA/GA/MN. I've removed my AM Scout loadouts and intend to respec out of it should it remain this way for long. |
Vitantur Nothus
Nos Nothi
1472
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 01:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
The Infected One wrote:
That being said. What suggestions would you have that would make it more worthwhile for players to build scout suits to actually make use of their bonuses over brick tanking with high damage on everything?
This has been a point of discussion at the Barbershop since the first week of Uprising 1.8. Opinions among the old-school Scouts vary, but efficacy-based, role-appropriate bonuses were a largely favored approach.
Another idea briefly fielded by Rattati is a mass model which would take into account frame size. In essence, HP modules would have weight, and exceeding a a given weight rating would come with penalty.
Assault Lite is becoming less and less an issue, however. The Scout is no longer out-assaulting the Assault, and the remaining herpa-derp 800HP Scouts would be much better off running Assault. |
Vitantur Nothus
Nos Nothi
1474
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 13:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Where were you, Infected, when your CEO and CPM was laying out his "360 wallhack" agenda before Rattati?
We were there. We explained in no uncertain terms that devaluing EWAR would be bad for both Scout design and class parity. We explained as we'd previously explained that the worse we make EWAR for Scouts, the more Scouts will gravitate toward "Assault Lite" slayer builds. Zatara rebutted that Assault Lite wasn't a real problem, rather the real problem was the "360 degree wallhacking" EWAR Scout.
We gave it our best shot. Zatara laughed at expert feedback. It's all here:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=181381&find=unread
And ^ there ^ is where we should have had this conversation. In the end, Rattati ruled in favor weakening passive scans. Right or wrong, that was his ruling. Fortunately, he followed up the strafe penalty and the "Assault Lite" exodus is now well underway.
Mission Accomplished.
Fast Forward to today ...
Scouts have always opposed a Sidearm Only restriction. It doesn't matter whether or not we could pull it if; it would severely limit build diversity. It would distill an entire class down to a handful of optimized loadout options. Yes, the combat-oriented MinScout would be largely unaffected, but there's more to the class than one suit. Most importantly, there is no good reason to do it.
Secondly, this quid-pro-quo approach makes no sense. You're saying, "Scouts should be better at EWAR so take away their Light Weapon." If Scouts should be better at EWAR, then make them better at EWAR; there's no need to trade.
If it is in fact your goal to make the Scout Dust's optimal recon unit, then why not make Active Scanners scout-only equipment? This would accomplish the goal with fewer moving parts and less blowback. The only suit you'll need fix after the fact is the GA Logi.
|
Vitantur Nothus
Nos Nothi
1474
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 14:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Counterproposal: Reinforcing the Recon Scout
Prerequisites
* Replace current GA Logi racial bonus
* Restrict Active Scanners to Scout class
* Set all Scanners to Team Share
Implementation
* AM Scout - Counter-infiltration. Bonus to high intensity, short range scanners.
* CA Scout - Long Range Recon. Bonus to low intensity, long range scanners.
* GA Scout - Infiltration. No bonus to scanners.
* MN Scout - Hack and Slash. No bonus to scanners.
|
|
|
| |
|