DUST Search - [Suggesting] Kindly Buff Scouts

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Suggesting] Kindly Buff Scouts

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8803	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:49:00 - [1] - Quote Or nerf Assaults. The imbalance is plain as day from my POV; the tougher the fight, the more obvious the imbalance. I can only imagine that kill/spawn efficiency data is showing same as market data. It shouldn't take much. Dialing back Assault mobility will probably do the trick. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8806	Posted - 2015.04.16 22:36:00 - [2] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Assault assaulting? Assaults can be the very best at their performing role without being OP, just like HMG Heavies. Shamarskii Simon wrote: Head on 1v1? Hard fight for the lighter guy? I've been at this for awhile, but if you want to tell me I'm doing it wrong, I won't try to persuade you otherwise. Shamarskii Simon wrote: Idk man... Feels about right tbh. If Assault kill/spawn efficiency looks anything like usage rates, something's going to have to give. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8806	Posted - 2015.04.16 22:49:00 - [3] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: Hey! quit trying to jump to the front of the queue! -A logi in the "Getting buffed 'Soon' line." Agreed. Buffing Scouts isn't the optimal path. Gently nerfing Assaults would be more efficient. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8807	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:14:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: OR Scouts should be based on doing actual Scout work, and EWAR. It's great to see people moving faster. I just wish the game supported this kind of movement more. I must've missed the part where Rattati reversed Scout EWAR nerfs, removed Falloff, removed team share from Active Scanners, replaced the GalLogi bonus, and added Recon Assist WP for Scout Passive Scans. When did all that happen? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8810	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:36:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Hmmmm I dunno. While this is entirely anecdotal, I find myself being killed by Scouts far more often than I do Assaults. The issue I seem to be encountering the most is wiggle wiggle strafing fits, namely scouts and Min Assaults. Other assaults seem to be fairly balanced against what I typically use which is the Commando. They're a bit on the strong side vs Commando, but that's more of a commando problem than Assault. o/ Pokey There's an entirely different dynamic at play in Scout v Commando and Scout v Assault. I'd argue that Commandos are UP in that their HP levels do not appropriately reflect their significant mobility limitations and EWAR ineptitude. Assaults, on the other hand, are often tankier than Commandos, move at substantially higher speeds and need only fit one precision enhancer to have shot at detecting and parrying a sneak attack before it even happens. I can count on one hand the number of times per day a good Commando successfully parries my shotgun flank attack. By contrast, taking out a good Assault player from behind is a toss up. Even when I'm successful, my position has been compromised to all of his squadmates. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8811	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:03:00 - [6] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I have heard that Rattati is working on some grand HP to Mobility ratio which will hopefully address some of the concerns I think we both have. CCP Rattati wrote: I want each frame to have mass, each module to have mass, and speed is dynamically related to mass. base speed = 6 at zero mass Scout = 100 (could substitute mass for hp) base speed 100/X = 5.2 plate = 10 1 plate = 10% speed reduction 5 plates = 50% reduction new speed = base speed * penalty Sentinel = 500 base speed = 500/X = 4.5 plate = 10 1 plate = 2% speed reduction 5 plates = 10% reduction new speed = base speed * penalty penalty wouldn't have to be linear I already have some calculations and ideas without a true encumbrance model, I can share that Posted: 2014.12.03 05:31 I don't know that such a model would be well received. I imagine there are a great number of players who enjoy moving fast while pushing 800HP. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8811	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:07:00 - [7] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: As an Amarr assault I die to scouts more than any other class. Also anecdotal -- but no less true. I ran AM Assault for a 'bit last month. To be frank, you've got no excuse if you're dying to Scouts in that suit. Run a precision enhancer, grab a vanilla scrambler rifle and pay attention. With balance as it is today, you should be killing the Scouts who get the drop on you 2x to 3x more often than they kill you. If you aren't keen on watching your TacNet, MyoFibs come in handy as well. Get shotgunned in the back. Hop away. Inst-melt the Scout. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8816	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:31:00 - [8] - Quote Archduke Ferd1nand wrote: Undoing the cloak nerfs would put them in perfect balance IMO. Which Cloak Nerfs? * Reduced Profile Bonus * Reduced Duration * Decloak Delay * Cloak Blind Fire-from-cloak was a serious problem. TacNet immune, 600+ HP GalScouts were too. In my opinion, Mass:Movement tradeoffs would make for a better fix (meaning, nerf Assault mobility). Returning Scouts to an OP state won't magically balance Assaults; there are other units to consider. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8816	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:46:00 - [9] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: OR Scouts should be based on doing actual Scout work, and EWAR. It's great to see people moving faster. I just wish the game supported this kind of movement more. I must've missed the part where Rattati reversed Scout EWAR nerfs, removed Falloff, removed team share from Active Scanners, replaced the GalLogi bonus, and added Recon Assist WP for Scout Passive Scans. When did all that happen? You're stating scanning changes, I said EWAR. If not scanning, what exactly do you mean by Scout work and EWAR? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8819	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:13:00 - [10] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Scan Stuff Assaults out-slay all else. Heavies out-tank all else. Logis out-support all else. Do Scouts out-scan all else? Inner Rings are all more or less created equal; run a precision enhancer or two, and spot anything and everything that gets within 5 or so meters of you. Similarly, Outer Rings are all more or less created equal; if a unit makes any effort to dampen, that unit will not be picked up by your Outer Rings. So it must be the Middle Ring that sets the Scout apart from the pack. I'd argue a single Active Scanner scanner can provide higher quality recon than any Recon Scout's Middle Ring. Enter the GalLogi, and there is truly no comparison. If scans are intended to set Scouts apart, then scans need to be overhauled. And in that overhaul, we must work in WP for passive recon. And after the overhaul, "role bleed" will remain in that anything a Recon Scout can do, a GalLogi can do far better. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8819	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:24:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You don't have to be the best at something to get WP and contribute. I'd dispute the out slay all else. Assault players are your bro's who don't really have the best of anything, just are close to everything, at least scouts have visual cloaking, very potent biotic modules, and adaptability over most other classes. I agree with you in that cloaking is the one and only thing that sets Scouts apart. Most Newbro Scouts can't fit it. Most veteran Scouts won't run it. There's work to be done there as well. So many little things to tune to bring these units up-to-speed with Assaults. And the same goes for Logis and Commandos. We could tune lots and lots of things, or we could Assault Mobility. Why be inefficient? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8819	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:44:00 - [12] - Quote @ OEK I could be wrong, but I don't think that Passive Scans or Recon Scouts are going make a comeback. I suspect that today's Scouts are supposed to be the squishy, sneaky, and highly mobile flank attack class. The one and only reason we aren't excelling in this capacity is Assault Mobility. Even if Falloff were to remain unchanged, if these High HP units suddenly began to move like other High HP units, we could get our licks in and get the heck out quickly enough to be competitively viable. I don't think that Scouts need to be overhauled to be unique or competitive. I suspect that all we need to do is widen the speed gap; there's a good chance that one change will fix Assault v Scout balance. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8822	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:25:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: One Eyed King wrote: True Adamance wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: True Adamance wrote: Scan Stuff Logis out-support all else Assaults out-slay all else Heavies out-tank all else Do Scouts out-scan all else? Inner Rings are all more or less created equal; run a precision enhancer or two, and spot everything that gets within 5 or so meters. Outer Rings are all more or less created equal; if a unit makes any effort to dampen, that unit will not be picked up in Outer Rings. So is the Middle Ring that sets the Scout apart from the pack? I'd argue a single Active Scanner scanner out-recons any recon Scout. Enter the GalLogi, and there is truly no comparison. If scans are intended to set Scouts apart, then I believe scans need to be overhauled. You don't have to be the best at something to get WP and contribute. I'd dispute the out slay all else. Assault players are your bro's who don't really have the best of anything, just are close to everything, at least scouts have visual cloaking, very potent biotic modules, and adaptability over most other classes. Of those things you mentioned towards the end, Assaults can use just as well, if not in many cases better, with the exception of the cloak. Which in many cases is highly visible, and given the nature of the cloak delay, becomes an overly significant draw back (The delay of switch is actually something like 3 seconds, with a decloak delay of a couple seconds, so that you are essentially visible for 1 second before being able to fire. If you are spotted while cloaked, you essentially have a 3 second delay before being able to defend yourself, all while having a fraction of the HP). This game heavily rewards HP more than EWAR in its current state. Every suit should have a role, and Scouts really don't anymore. We can neither beat all scans, nor out scan. We can't stealthily engage in CQC, nor do we have the HP to bother ambushing mercs at range. Everything we can do that is special, Assaults can do well enough that when adding their other advantages, diminishes the strategic incentives for using a Scout suit instead. Hmmmm I suppose given your role as a scout my voice means comparatively little however I have to point out that the scanning thing I think is a little over played on your part. Yeah I get the frustration of not being able to avoid all scans when your role is stealth however in this game there must be some kind of scanner that can reveal you. There is not suit that deserves TACNET invisibility at all times under all circumstances. However I somewhat understand you dilemma, a fair few....not a lot of people have skilled permascanning Gal Scout to counter top tier scout invisibility, kind of like how everyone and their mother in this game has Wyrkomi's (and they aren't as soft as most people make them to be). I don't really want to complain though because without them though since if they didn't have them I would have an ungodly advantage over most players. This reads as though you aren't up-to-date with current in-game mechanics. Avoiding detection isn't limited to dodging GalLogi scans. Any MedFrame who runs just one precision enhancer will scan even the most heavily dampened Scout before that Scout gets within optimal shotgun or knifing. That intel is relayed to all squadmates; even if the medframe dies, the Scout's position was still compromised. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8822	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:32:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: This reads as though you aren't up-to-date with current in-game mechanics. Avoiding detection isn't limited to dodging GalLogi scans. Any MedFrame who runs just one precision enhancer will scan even the most heavily dampened Scout before that Scout gets within optimal shotgun or knifing. That intel is relayed to all squadmates; even if the medframe dies, the Scout's position was still compromised. For realsies? Are you being serious? I have lots of math for you if so: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zVbDLXDU5gpKjx1YmE9ODVYHxlE40vhNz-L7gBTcY4Y/edit This has been the case since December. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8822	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:38:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: NO MATH! I YIELD! OK, without maths ... Medframe equips 1 complex precision enhancer. If he's an Assault, he now scans at 16dB out to 6 meters. If he's a Logi, he now scans at 16dB out to 8 meters. His scans are shared with his squad. Say you're a Scout, and you want to backstab this guy without blipping on his squad's TacNet ... CA Scout - Impossible MN Scout - Impossible AM Scout - Needs 4 complex damps GA Scout - Needs 3 complex damps Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8822	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:53:00 - [16] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Or nerf Assaults. The imbalance is plain as day from my POV; the tougher the fight, the more obvious the imbalance. I can only imagine that kill/spawn efficiency data is mirroring usage data. It shouldn't take much. Dialing back Assault mobility would be a great start, and might just do the trick. I think the only assault with too much mobility is the minmatar, and that mobility nerf could be accomplished by nerfing its stam gain (and buffing amarr scout base speeds) The MN Assault is no doubt the worst offender. MN Assault speed aside, the class as a whole is moving too fast. If an Assault is packing more HP than a Commando, why is he still moving so much faster than a Commando? If an Assault is running straight biotics and out-sprinting Scouts, why is doing so with > 2x the HP of a Scout? Assaults are simultaneously attaining High HP and High Mobility. There should be more of a tradeoff. Not just for MN Assaults. For all Assaults. For everyone. Uparmored Scouts included. Be fast or be tanked. Not both. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8844	Posted - 2015.04.17 12:10:00 - [17] - Quote SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: Scouts were never supposed to be the end-all-be-all The very same could and should be said for Assaults. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8844	Posted - 2015.04.17 12:20:00 - [18] - Quote Starlight Burner wrote: I say no to buffing scouts. I honestly feel that most Scout users are not correctly playing the 'scout' role ... Scout definition: a soldier or other person sent out ahead of a main force so as to gather information about the enemy's position, strength, or movements. Please read this thread. It is where Scouts requested to remain Scoutly, and were denied. Starlight Burner wrote: A scout is not supposed to win a 1v1 head on. I usually to always win a 1v1 scout situation when taken head on in my Assualt Gk.0 suit. This is balanced correctly. Agreed. The problem is that against a competent Assault unit, a 1v1 attack from behind as often as not promptly becomes a 1v1 head-on engagement. High mobility, combined with high HP and intense short range scans permits Assaults to too easily turn the table on units who get the drop on them. This is imbalanced. Starlight Burner wrote: Is it impossible? No, just takes practice just like anything else. I get killed by scouts all the time. Normally, I always die to scouts because ain't no one got good aim. Scouts are doing just fine. Stop attacking from the front because you're supposed to be a scout. Please read above. Starlight Burner wrote: I don't think scouts need a buff. I think you should run with some frequent PC Scout players. You can learn alot watching a stompsquad mop up a pub, but you won't learn much about role interplay or balance. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8844	Posted - 2015.04.17 12:27:00 - [19] - Quote SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: Starlight Burner wrote: Scout definition: a soldier or other person sent out ahead of a main force so as to gather information about the enemy's position, strength, or movements. Passive scans with scouts were big. I hated the eWar nerf due to that You and I both. Scout EWAR was not to blame Assault Lite out-assaulting Assault. The right path then is the same as the right path now: The more HP a unit packs, the less mobile he becomes. This would have fixed Assault Lite rolebleed then. This would fix Scout Lite rolebleed now. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8844	Posted - 2015.04.17 12:35:00 - [20] - Quote Haerr wrote: Scouts are fine(-ish). But I'll agree on the HP vs. Movement Speed bit, Assaults could stand to be slightly slower, Commandos could do with a slot more or a bit more HP, and Logistics could have a bit higher movement speed. I believe we agree on all points. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8848	Posted - 2015.04.17 15:54:00 - [21] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Never again. We all remember post-1.8 when Assault Suits pretty much died out. No one clamored more productively for Scout nerfs than Scouts following 1.8. We probably took it too far. Mobius Wyvern wrote: There is no way in which an Assault Suit can be OP in its role. That's like saying your Scout suit is OP because my Assault Suit can't get scans as good as your's or fit a cloak easily. Just like everything else, Assaults can absolutely be "too good" at doing what they do. Assaults don't have to be broken to be the best slayers. A 300HP speedy unit shouldn't have a hard time keeping up with (or running away from) an 800HP slayer unit. When they do -- which is the case today -- one of the two units broken. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8849	Posted - 2015.04.17 16:48:00 - [22] - Quote IAmDuncanIdaho II wrote: Anyway bottom line: I agree with addressing the mobility imbalance before anything else. The way that is set up feels instinctively wrong. Inverse HP <--> Mobility feels instinctively right. Apart from different class baselines, class is irrelevant. That HP module just added %age mobility penalty. Completely agree. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8849	Posted - 2015.04.17 16:53:00 - [23] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: ... to clarify I'd like to see assaults generally hitting around 600-800 hp, which I think would end up being perfectly fine, scouts should be 300-500, commandos 700-900 or so, heavies 1100-1300 or so. I think the only one that doesnt fit into these numbers are assaults or bricked scouts (which would also be disallowed by diminishing returns and are ineffective anyway), so hurrah? I'd add Logis in there somewhere between Scouts and Assaults, perhaps 400-600 range. The scale makes sense to me, so long as 800HP guys aren't running around at comparable speeds as the 300HP guys. Perhaps diminishing on plates is the way to go; perhaps increased mobility penalties for plates would work as well. I'd only add that the drawbacks of stacking plates should affect Light Frames more than Medium Frames, and Medium Frames more than Heavy Frames (or altogether exclude Heavy Frames from the drawbacks). Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8856	Posted - 2015.04.17 18:41:00 - [24] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: But the fact remains, the assault is meant to be main-line infantry. Saying that it should not be a popular option is not only hilarious, but ludicrous. I've never claimed that Assaults should be less popular than other classes. Most players play the role of slayer, and Assaults are the go-to slayer suit. It is natural that their usage rates outweigh those of other classes. What isn't natural is an 800HP unit running around at 9 m/s. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8857	Posted - 2015.04.17 18:53:00 - [25] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: But the fact remains, the assault is meant to be main-line infantry. Saying that it should not be a popular option is not only hilarious, but ludicrous. I've never claimed that Assaults should be less popular than other classes. Most players play the role of slayer, and Assaults should be the go-to slayer suit. It is natural that their usage rates outweigh those of other classes. What isn't natural is 800HP units moving at 9 m/s. If they could cloak, I'd agree with you. But given the interaction I described, I'm glad that scouts cannot trivially prey upon the assault class anymore. This was a good change. I expect Assault usage rates to be higher than all else, but that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to overuse, overperformance or role bleed. 800HP units outrunning 300HP units should not happen. Yet it does. And when it does, cloak makes zero difference. Give Scouts a cloak that works, and I might agree with you. What we have now is a sad gimmick that is more often a handicap than it is a boon. Newbros can't fit it and many vets won't run it. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8860	Posted - 2015.04.17 19:12:00 - [26] - Quote DDx77 wrote: Way off topic.... Nothi Nova knife winner? I was under the impression it was Mr Mustard that won Therefore............. ARE YOU THE MYTHICAL UNICORN KNOWN AS MR MUSTARD? Cap'n Musturd = CEO of the Nos Nothi Nos Nothi = We Bastards Original Bastards = Pre-1.8 Scouts (not mr musturd, but I did name this meme after his corp) Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8865	Posted - 2015.04.17 21:06:00 - [27] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: ... I definately think min assault needs its mobility nerfed (some say speed, I'd like to start with stamina, who knows) Just watched a MN Assault hop 50ft into the air literally 5x in a row, all the while spamming MD rounds. At maximum, he should get 2 of those ridiculous jumps before his stamina pool is completely drained. So yes, you're right, nerf MN Assault stamina pool. Also, reduce its base movement from 5.30 to 5.20 to normalize comparative speed progressions. Finally, swap Assault and Logi movement speeds. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8871	Posted - 2015.04.17 21:54:00 - [28] - Quote Francisco Walker wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: True Adamance wrote: NO MATH! I YIELD! OK, without maths ... Medframe equips 1 complex precision enhancer. If he's an Assault, he now scans at 16dB out to 6 meters. If he's a Logi, he now scans at 16dB out to 8 meters. Say you're a Scout, and you want to backstab this guy without blipping on his and his entire squad's TacNet ... CA Scout - Impossible MN Scout - Impossible AM Scout - Needs 4 complex damps GA Scout - Needs 3 complex damps I think the values your are using for Falloff Precision (Short, Medium, Long) (50%, 100%, 130%) respectively are incorrect. I don't know where to find the correct values, but I am sure that the correct ones are (90%, 100%, 110%) respectively. Thus, with max skills and 1 complex precision enhancer an Assault has 29.16 dB passive scan at short range. Negative! 41dB - Assault with max passives (mid range) 32dB - Assault with max passives, +1 complex precision enhancer (mid range) 16dB - Assault with max passives, +1 complex precision enhancer (short range) Click the 1.10 Calculations tab for my maths: Google Doc Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8871	Posted - 2015.04.17 21:57:00 - [29] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: I'd be inclined to look at the Min Assault and what is impacting its use trends and move first from there before taking broader action. High HP + High Mobility = FoTM Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8871	Posted - 2015.04.18 00:01:00 - [30] - Quote ToRgUe77 wrote: if you're 1v1 an assault head on you're doing it wrong and should just give up. scouts aren't supposed to be able to take out assaults head on,that's why they are fast and sneaky. scouts are meant to out play they're foes not tank through damage. For the 3rd time. Let's say you're a Shotgun Scout and I'm an Assault. You flank me, you stalk me, you're ready strike. You sneak up from behind and ... ... if I'm running 1 Precision, I spot you behind me at 6m. I spin around and now we're in a "head on" fight. ... if I'm running KinCats, you shotgun me in the back. I sprint into a hop and now we're in a "head on" fight. ... if I'm running HP, you shotgun me in the back. I spin around and now we're in a "head on" fight. ... if I'm running Myofib, you shotgun me in the back. I hop out of your range and now we're in a "head on" fight. ... if you manage to hit me the req'd 2x to 3x and win, now you're in a "head on" fight with my squad. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8871	Posted - 2015.04.18 00:04:00 - [31] - Quote Francisco Walker wrote: , but I am sure that the correct ones are (90%, 100%, 110%) respectively. Where did you get numbers? When did they change from the original 50%, 100%, 130% outlined by Rattati in the Falloff documentation and Patch Notes? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2491888#post2491888 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j0uAKk-PtFUgV62QANDe0lJ02Ukc-jQuhcLdwhG4J1Q/edit#gid=18624413 http://dust514.com/news/2014/12/uprising-1.10-overview-patch-notes/ (I don't believe that any changes have been made to Falloff since its release in December.) Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8877	Posted - 2015.04.18 00:53:00 - [32] - Quote Thx, OEK. True Adamance wasn't up-to-speed on scans either. I need to be more careful not to jump down people's throats when they claim that "everything is fine" or "scouts should be scouting". It is possible that many more folks out there are simply unaware that EWAR has changed, not to mention how hard the EWAR nerfs hit Scouts. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8877	Posted - 2015.04.18 01:07:00 - [33] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Commandos are **** right now. Giving them more speed isnt going to fix it. . Yep.. Agree 100%. I love some of the flexibility of Commando but when Assaults have the same HP and twice the speed, flexibility doesn't mean much. +1 Low Slot, all races all tiers (and enough PG/CPU to put something in it). Combine that with Assault mobility better reflecting their HP levels, and Commandos will very likely be balanced against Assaults. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8877	Posted - 2015.04.18 01:34:00 - [34] - Quote Francisco Walker wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Francisco Walker wrote: , but I am sure that the correct ones are (90%, 100%, 110%) respectively. Where did you get 90%, 100%, 110%? When did these numbers change from the original 50%, 100%, 130% outlined by Rattati in the Falloff documentation and Patch Notes? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2491888#post2491888 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j0uAKk-PtFUgV62QANDe0lJ02Ukc-jQuhcLdwhG4J1Q/edit#gid=18624413 http://dust514.com/news/2014/12/uprising-1.10-overview-patch-notes/ I don't believe that any changes have been made to Falloff since its release in December (Uprising 1.10). Did I miss something? Did a little research. The numbers he is quoting are the original numbers from the original post on the subject here. He is likely unaware that the numbers changed after that point, and the numbers in game are now different. 1. I get the numbers form http://www.protofits.com/ (I believe it use the most recent values and it is very reliable) 2. I have a fitting with 2 complex precision enhancers (CPE) and it not scans things as you said. Very often I have been killed by scouts and it's just too late when I hear the sound of someone decloacking. 3. If it is really powerful as you said, there is no reason to use more than one CPE, and also there is no reason to use active scanners. 1. Looks like Protofits is wrong. I'll poke Cyrus to let him know. 2. No unit can beat your 13dB scans; the only explanation I can think of is that you either failed to notice the blip or TacNet failed to paint the blip to your HUD in a timely manner (perhaps due to latency). 3. Disagreed. Passives of Assault gk.0 +2 cPE are roughly equal to Scout gk.0 +1 cPE. Those are extremely good scans as far as passive scans go. But we're talking about extremely short ranges here. Prototype Active Scanners provide much higher quality recon than mid-range and long-range passives, especially if they're coming from a GalLogi. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8884	Posted - 2015.04.18 02:43:00 - [35] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: Derp Just in case you aren't trolling ... If an Assault fits 1 cmp precision enhancer, he'll scan at 16dB out to 6m. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8884	Posted - 2015.04.18 02:47:00 - [36] - Quote Francisco Walker wrote: 1. I get the numbers form http://www.protofits.com/ (I believe it use the most recent values and it is very reliable) Thanks a bunch for pointing this out, Francisco. Cyrus has updated protofits: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2729965#post2729965 Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8885	Posted - 2015.04.18 03:34:00 - [37] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: ... I definately think min assault needs its mobility nerfed (some say speed, I'd like to start with stamina, who knows) Just watched a 600HP MN Assault hop 50ft into the air literally 5x in a row. At maximum, he should get 2 of those ridiculous (4x myo) jumps before his stamina pool is completely drained. So yes, you're right, nerf MN Assault stamina pool. Also, reduce its base movement from 5.30 to 5.20 to normalize comparative speed progressions. Finally, swap Assault and Logi movement speeds. Pretty sure nobody in any suit can jump more than 3 times in a row without stopping for a few seconds for stam regen, so Ill take your comments with a grain of salt. Watched it with my own eyes, and I don't make stuff up. Jump. Fire mass driver. Land. Rinse/Repeat x5. He was running an Assault mk.0. Might've been 3x myo-fibs, but I'm pretty sure he was running 4x given the height he was reaching and the damage he was doing to himself. No way to tell whether or not he was running a CardReg, but I'll be glad to test both with and without. I just respec'd out of MN Assault, so I can't reverse engineer his suit. Closest thing I have is a 4x myo CalScout. Will test with and without CardRegs. I'm wondering if his stamina was partially recharging during his descents. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8885	Posted - 2015.04.18 03:51:00 - [38] - Quote 4x myo CalScout w/0 cardreg: ~4 jumps before before stamina depletes; stamina recharge does not begin until landed. 4x myo CalScout w/1 cardreg: ~8 jumps before stamina depletes; stamina recharge does not begin until landed. Conclusion: The jumping MN Assault was running a CardReg, and Vesta owes me an apology :-) Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8885	Posted - 2015.04.18 03:52:00 - [39] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: I dont think the stam regen mechanic works like that, pretty sure it pauses if you are jumping or falling regardless of how long it takes for you to hit ground. Correct. This was my observation as well. Stamina began to regen shortly after landing. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8885	Posted - 2015.04.18 03:54:00 - [40] - Quote Vyuru wrote: That's what it sounds like he was doing at anyrate. Toss in a CardReg for fast stamina regen, I'd be willing to guess that he can make his stamina last a very long time with lots of jumps. 1 complex cardreg doubles the number of times you can jump. I didn't realize that this was the case until testing it a few minutes ago. If the hopping gets out of hand, I'd propose that Rattati either fix the jump cost at 25% of stamina pool (meaning cardregs would have no effect on jump count) or wire myofib-aided jumps such that the higher the jump, the greater the stamina cost. Example: Run 0x myofibs and get 4 normal jumps from your stamina pool Run 2x myofibs and get 2 large jumps from your stamina pool Run 4x myo and get 1 massive jump with your stamina pool (8 back-to-back massive jumps at the cost of 1 cardreg is a 'bit silly) Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8910	Posted - 2015.04.18 16:18:00 - [41] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: Now whether or not that is iterated correctly at this point is an entirely separate matter ... Spitballing ... Objectives * Max HP: Sentinel > Commando > Assault > Logi > Scout * Mobility: Sentinel < Commando < Assault < Logi < Scout Approach A 1. Implement Rattati's mass:movement model Benefits Meets objectives most elegantly; not a "quick fix"; very easily fine tuned Drawbacks Significant design and implementation time; expensive; likely a long wait Approach B 1. Reduce Assault base HP and/or slot count Benefits Meets objectives Drawbacks Risks return of Assault Lite out-slaying Assaults; upsets Heavy v Assault interplay Approach C 1. Reduce Assault base speeds by a fixed percentage 2. Add low-slot to commandos to increase max HP potential 3. Increase and retool plate penalties by Frame (high penalty to Light, low penalty to Heavy) Benefits Meets objectives; Assault Lite resurgence deterred; Heavy interplay largely unaffected Drawbacks Potentially upsets intra-class armor v. shield parity (if shields v armor are presently in balance) Approach D 1. Swap Logi and Assault base speeds 2. Add low-slot to commandos to increase max HP potential 3. Increase and retool plate penalties by Frame (high penalty to Light, low penalty to Heavy) Benefits Meets objectives; Assault Lite resurgence deterred; Heavy interplay largely unaffected; Logi survivability improved Drawbacks Potentially upsets intra-class armor v. shield parity (if shields v armor are presently in balance) My two cents: Approach A would be ideal, but it'd also be alot of work. Approach D (or something like it) is the best "quick fix" I can think of; I'm of the opinion that "brick up" is the prevailing meta, and that increased drawbacks to plates would bring shields v armor closer to parity. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8915	Posted - 2015.04.18 16:58:00 - [42] - Quote Francisco Walker wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Francisco Walker wrote: 1. I get the numbers form http://www.protofits.com/ (I believe it use the most recent values and it is very reliable) Thanks a bunch for pointing this out, Francisco. Cyrus has updated protofits: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2729965#post2729965 Nice! Sometimes is hard to know what is real parameters and if they are correct, and in fact, applying to the game. I agree with you about your comments on points 2 and 3 in my last post. Don't you think that a distance of 6 m is too close to give any response when someone is attacking from behind? That's an excellent question. In instances where a target is standing still and a CQC Scout is rushing in from behind, that Scout blips only briefly on the target's TacNet. The target himself will likely not notice the brief blip before being engaged. Stationary, lone targets are ideal for quick takedown, though a successful takedown/escape even in these optimal cases is by no means guaranteed. Explanation. Ideal targets (lone, stationary) are the exception. There's safety in numbers, and competent units tend to both travel and hold/take positions in groups. In instances where a competent unit is alone, he is almost always on the move. If I'm on the move and you're behind me, you and I will be traveling in the same direction. If your Scout sprints 0.5 m/s faster than my Assault, you will be on my TacNet for a full 2 seconds between 6m and 4m (shotgun range) and 7 seconds between 6m and 2.5m (NK range). As a rule of thumb, it is a bad idea to chase down any Assault. And it is an especially a bad idea to try to chase down MN Assaults; these are typically both faster than double damp'd Scouts and have comparable stamina. They've twice your HP, you can't catch them, and they pause to rest no more often than you do. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8926	Posted - 2015.04.18 19:42:00 - [43] - Quote DR DEESE NUTS wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: ... I definately think min assault needs its mobility nerfed (some say speed, I'd like to start with stamina, who knows) Just watched a 600HP MN Assault hop 50ft into the air literally 5x in a row. At maximum, he should get 2 of those ridiculous (4x myo) jumps before his stamina pool is completely drained. So yes, you're right, nerf MN Assault stamina pool. Also, reduce its base movement from 5.30 to 5.20 to normalize comparative speed progressions. Finally, swap Assault and Logi movement speeds. Guess someone wants to [be] the new fotm. I want Dust to be the best it can be, and I believe that role balance plays a big part in that. The very last thing I want is another round of FoTM / OP Scouts. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8931	Posted - 2015.04.19 04:01:00 - [44] - Quote RedPencil wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: All Approach A - D... Did you forget about the Precision inner ring? Better to fix the biggest problem first. I'm painfully aware of the problems created by Falloff, but I believe that the present lack of tradeoff between HP and Mobility represents a greater problem. Regardless of what changes are or are not made to EWAR, if 600-800HP slayer units are still keeping pace with 300-400HP speed/stealth units, then classes will remain out-of-balance. In my opinion, we should start with mass:movement; if interplay issues persist, then we should move on to tuning lesser problems. Intense inner rings get alot of hate from CQC Scouts, but they were introduced for a good reason. Even after decloak/fire delay and cloakblind, shotgun kill/spawn efficiency was still too high when compared to other weapons. Nerfing range obviously wouldn't have been an option, and nerfing damage or RoF would've given heavies a free pass. Through Falloff, Rattati found a way to introduce new risk factors and decrease shotgun kill/spawn efficiency without directly nerfing the weapon. Compared to the available alternatives, this was a good move. The biggest drawback to intense inner rings is that NK Scouts (like you) took an undeserved hit on account of SG Scouts (like me). Then FoTM MN Assault spam happened, and we both got boned. Then myofibs happened, and we both got boned again. Lol. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8931	Posted - 2015.04.19 04:23:00 - [45] - Quote Starlight Burner wrote: RedPencil wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: All Approach A - D... Did you forget about the Precision inner ring? Correct ones are (50%, 100%, 130%) respectively. Change to (70%, 100%, 130%) respectively. So, Assault 0 Precision mod pickup Scout 0 Damp under inner ring. And, Assault 1 Precision mod pickup Scout 1 Damp under inner ring. Last, Assault 2 Precision mod will not pickup Scout 2+ Damp under inner ring. No, I don't agree with that. If you're right up on me, I should be able to pick you up. Seriously, this doesn't need to get changed. No other competitive FPS I've ever played alerts players to an incoming backstab. When another player manages to get the drop on me then sneak up within a few meters of my arse and pull the trigger, I know I deserve to die. I'd die in any other shooter. It's called getting outplayed. What you have now -- what you say "doesn't need to get changed" -- is called a free pass. You get outsmarted and you get outplayed, yet you get an opportunity to overcome. It's pretty much BS by any competitive standard. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8952	Posted - 2015.04.19 16:31:00 - [46] - Quote RedPencil wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: All Approach A - D... Did you forget about the Precision inner ring? Correct ones are (50%, 100%, 130%) respectively. Change to (70%, 100%, 130%) respectively. So, Assault 0 Precision mod pickup Scout 0 Damp under inner ring. And, Assault 1 Precision mod pickup Scout 1 Damp under inner ring. Last, Assault 2 Precision mod will not pickup Scout 2+ Damp under inner ring. Still thinking about this, RedPencil. Put together some maths, as well as a couple alternative spitballs: Google Doc Under 50/100/130 ---> 70/100/130, you'll see that Gallente and Caldari Scouts would be able to duck even amplified passives with only one dampener. This could lead to the "invisible monster" problem which we observed following 1.8 (heavily tanked, TacNet immune GalScouts and CalScouts). Just like high-speed + high-hp causes balance problems, high-hp + stealth does the same. Further, the increased risk to shotgunners under 50/100/130 is the only thing keeping the shotgun from becoming overly efficient again. The Shotgun factor got me thinking. The whole point of 50/100/130 is to add risk to shotgunning to keep SG efficiency in check. Unfortunately, the same risk increase applies to Nova Knives. So what if wielding Nova Knives reduced one's profile? See NK-based Profile Modifier for specific maths. Another (likely unpopular) option would be to simply nerf Assault Scan Precision. If Rattati were to rule that Assault mobility and HP potential must remain as is, then tuning precision might be the next best option. This would make Assaults more vulnerable when caught offguard by dampened Scouts, which would ease the imbalance between the two classes. I like this approach better than 70/100/130 as current interplay between Logi and Scout is maintained. See Assault Precision: 45dB ---> 50dB for specific maths. TL;DR: Still think Mass:Mobility is the key to Assault v Scout balance, but you've got me thinking about backup plans :-) Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8953	Posted - 2015.04.19 16:47:00 - [47] - Quote VALCORE72 wrote: scouts had 6 months of bull sht lol there good right where there at . Which of these is not like the other? Months of months of Broken AR-514: "Everything is fine", said the vast majority of AR-514. Months of months of Broken Slayer Logis: "Everything is fine", said the vast majority of Slayers. Months of months of Broken HAV and ADS: "Everything is fine", said the vast majority of Pilots. Months of months of Broken HMGs: "Everything is fine", said the vast majority of Heavies. Months of months of Broken Rail Rifles: "Everything is fine", said the vast majority of RR users. Months of months of Broken Scrambler Rifles: "Everything is fine", said the vast majority of ScR users. Months of months of Broken MN Assaults: "Everything is fine", said the vast majority of MN Assaults. Months of months of Broken Scouts: "Here are some nerfs which will fix us", said the vast majority of Scouts. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8964	Posted - 2015.04.19 23:49:00 - [48] - Quote RedPencil wrote: - I think NK is in the critical spot. Any more than the current state will make it OP. Perhaps I was unclear about Nova Knives. I'm not suggesting that we make them stronger. I'm saying, what if equipping knives reduced a unit's scan profile? This would work around the current constraints of Falloff, which is aimed at preventing shotgun kill/spawn over-efficiency but likely contributes Nova Knife under-efficiency. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8967	Posted - 2015.04.20 00:39:00 - [49] - Quote RedPencil wrote: Even a small change like falloff buff on KN could lead people to think it is OP. So I would rather not to put it to be jeopardized. On top of that, Rattati would totally refuse to apply a specific treatment like this as it clearly showed in the past (moving speed when hold NK). Not sure what you're getting at. Rattati's spent more time on the forums discussing Nova Knives than any other sidearm, and he has been consistent in his support of NK viability. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8967	Posted - 2015.04.20 00:49:00 - [50] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Imp Smash wrote: As an Amarr assault I die to scouts more than any other class. Also anecdotal -- but no less true. I ran AM Assault for a 'bit last month. To be frank, you've got no excuse if you're dying to Scouts in that suit. Run a precision enhancer, grab a vanilla scrambler rifle and pay attention. You should be killing the Scouts who get the drop on you far, far more often than they kill you. If you aren't keen on watching your TacNet, MyoFibs are another option. Get shotgunned in the back. Hop away. If you didn't inst-melt the Scout by reflex alone, he now has three bad options. Run away and try to find cover , "1v1 head-on fight" you with a sidearm, or try to rush through your ScR hipfire to get back into shotgun range ... at which point you need only hop again. I run a laser though...so yeah...none of that other stuff is an option. But hey, kudos on you for saying the exact same basic stuff everyone says and applies to all suits as though it applies more so to scouts somehow... Laser Rifle, huh? Yeah, you're pretty much screwed if a SG Scout catches you alone and gets in close, just like a Sniper or Forge Gunner. That said, you could equip a couple Myofibs and run a TY-5. That thing rips through pretty much every one of my Scout fits. Get hit in the back. Hop away. Pop the Scout as he tries to re-close the gap. Your odds of a successful parry won't be as imbalanced as they'd be with an ScR, but they'll be better way better than zero. You could also put down the Laser Rifle :P Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8977	Posted - 2015.04.20 04:00:00 - [51] - Quote Srsly? You "shouldn't have to" what? You shouldn't have to watch your six? You shouldn't have to put effort into surviving when you fail to do so? You shouldn't have to plan for the massive disadvantage you find yourself in when a CQC unit catches you off-guard and from behind while you're wielding a long-range weapon with negligible effect at close range? I can't help you, friend, if you're unwilling to help yourself. But I do hope you find a way get good. Also, I hope you actually read the arguments in this thread if/when you have time; they're less about buffing Scouts than you think. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.