Thanks for the response, Cross. I agree with much of your assessment, but I've a few points of disconnect/concern:

1. Is it not possible that scanner sales are less than that other EQ because you only need one or two guys per team running scans? In PC, for example, you want as many guys as possible dropping Uplinks but you only need one (possibly two) GalLogi firing off scans.

2. I disagree completely with your point on chain scanning. I do a lot of killing with my GalLogi between scans. It only takes a second or so to equip, point and shoot the active scanner. The most broken active scans in the game (gallogi + creodron flux) have a target scan duration of 12 seconds. A second or so to scan, 10 or so seconds of pewpewing bad guys before the returns fade. Three of these creodron flux scanners are needed for always-up scans, but two is more than enough to get the job done (only 6 seconds of downtime per 60 seconds).

3. I agree that the opportunity cost of running multiple Duvolle Focused Scanners on a GalLogi is in many cases too high to be worth the effort. I do not find this to be the case with any of the other Active Scanners. As previously explained, I find 2 creodron flux scanners to be more than sufficient to keep scans up (for my entire team, no less) which leaves my GalLogi 2 open slots for doing other logi things.

o7

Hey nantie slingers, here's a thread you may want to take a look at.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2959834#post2959834

2. A sample group of one is insufficient to define a use case, while I am certain there are quite a few players who could keep scans up and still slay like mad, there are also players who can slay like mad with most fits and weapons so that alone cannot be held as definitive. True the opportunity cost for pure use of the scanner may not be high for most players, but it is nonetheless present and should not be completely discounted out of hand, however the key aspect of this point also applies to #3 so I'll move on.

Thanks, Cross. Point 2 (on chain scanning, quoted above) is more about math and general mechanics than one player's experience or skill level. I'll explain. Assume a GalLogi is running two creodron flux scanners (200m, 90 degree, 21dB, 12 sec scan duration, 30 sec cooldown) and is putting them to use as often as they're made available (i.e. chain scanning).

I understand the assumption of your theoretical module however the assumption itself is where I find there to be question in application. Particularly "is putting them to use as often as they are made available" this presumes quite a bit more than it may seem at first blush.

It assumes that the player is paying proper attention at all times throughout the match and fully understands the UI, this eliminates new bros and a number of causal players/players who can get distracted by comms or other actions.

It further assumes that they (the scanners) are made available at times when their use is also both available and applicable, e.g. there are hostile mercs within scan range and more importantly they are not applying threat to the user in such a manner as to inhibit scan use.

Both of these things have direct implications to player skill and experience, further they even hold some meaningful implications for relative player player skill and experience because a deeply outmatched player will have fewer opportunities to do much thinking or more rarefied behavior beyond run and shoot (or honestly spawn and die in many cases).

Now, the theoretical module you present seems quite solid to me if one runs with the assumption as presented, but it is the assumption itself which causes the departure of our views regarding actual battlefield conditions and thus my assertion that player skill - both personal and comparative - is quite relevant.

On Points 1 and 3, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not sure who you're talking to, but I don't buy into the claim that Active Scans aren't a serious balance issue. I can run a 3x scanner GalLogi in 100 Ambush matches, and in 100 of those matches permanently scan the vast majority of the enemy team for my entire team. My presence alone limits the options of 16 players to (A) swap out to a sub-20dB Scouts suit, (B) gimp their assault suit, or (C) run what they want and be painted on TacNet for the entire match. Dust is tactical shooter with myriad loadout options; one unit severely restricting the options 16 others simply doesn't make sense.

I agree that lots and lots of things could be improved upon, but Dev Resources are limited and CCP has no option but to prioritize. I'm of the opinion that they should focus first on fixing those things which have the highest likelihood of improving gameplay. Improving Active Scan interplay fits that description; in terms of things to balance, I'd rank it at the very top of the low-hanging-fruit list, right next to King HP.

All it takes is one guy with two good scanners who knows what he's doing to effectively dismantle the other team.

Seems like a rather reductionist statement to me.

The guy would need a solid squad backing him, the guy would need to be going up against a force which relies on not being scanned (granted that's not super uncommon to be sure, but a force built primarily of the two heavy frame types with vehicle support will generally be impacted far less), the guy would need the context to use the scans (if he has a squad and we presume he knows what he's doing then this is very likely, but it also does not apply to everyone or honestly even every scanner type).

Already we can see that it is not one guy who is dismantling the enemy team. I presume however that the content and intent of the statement is that this one guy is having a large enough leveraged impact to swing the game in favor of his team. "Knows what he's doing" being a general enough statement I will certainly accent to the idea that there are players with sufficient skill to accomplish that in this context. It is important to point out however that this is true of some players within various contexts not simply "scans". And that "scans" is - as I pointed out before - a bad context because it is too general.

If there is a problem with a specific thing it requires a specific address whether that be a specific mechanic (duration, precision, angle, or bug), a specific item (flux scanner, focused scanner, et al) etc.

When I say "that is too vague to be entirely accurate" or any paraphrase thereof, that is exactly what I mean.
I do not mean "the claim has no merit and should be dismissed". Specificity is however something I will frequently call for as painting with an over broad brush has already proven to be bad balance practice in Dust 514 and think we can all agree that we certainly don't need a repeat of any mistaken patters from days gone by.

This is also why I generally take some degree of issue with simple declarative statements as they are - in essence - conclusions provided without citations and thus even if entirely accurate are often either in-actionable or not actionable in as effective a manner as their more descriptive counterparts could have provided.

0.02 ISK
Cross

You don't need a squad to permascan, stay far enough away from the battle that you're relatively safe and scan away. Have your weapon out during the duration of the scans in case any scouts sneak up on you. It's a win-win situation.

You don't need a squad to permascan, stay far enough away from the battle that you're relatively safe and scan away. Have your weapon out during the duration of the scans in case any scouts sneak up on you. It's a win-win situation.

I don't mean to parrot here but I too find myself not sure who you are talking to, or perhaps more specifically not sure what you are referencing. I say this because at not time have I asserted the claim that active scans aren't a balance issue serious or otherwise. The statement I have repeatedly made is that they - along with the rest of equipment - are in need of work and further in the case of active scans specifically that they are broken in a number of ways that both add and detract from their value, and that these ways far from making them 'in a good place' actually compound each other.

We may have to agree to disagree on some points as that can happen in any discourse, but here I am confused as to what you are disagreeing with because it seems as if you have simply misread my prior post. Allow me then to reiterate in more direct terms in the hopes of clearing up any prior misunderstanding.

I do believe that active scanners need work and never remember claiming otherwise, if I have at some prior time claimed otherwise then that view has been revised and does not reflect my current stance. I believe there are balance issues to address within the active scanner line internally (as one scanner relates to another) within equipment (as the value both tactical and earnings relates to other equipment) and pertinent to larger game balance (i.e. eWar as it applies beyond the equipment line). All of that being said I do not believe it to be a simple issue with a quick fix, but rather one that requires a deeper rework. As to the priority of the issue, I have been in favor of an equipment rework including the active scanner since my first term as CPM and generally class the four 'race bound' bits of logistics related equipment as high priority within that consideration.

If this clarification does not alter perception of our relative stances then please do elaborate on the particulars of how and why as I'd be interested to address - or if address is not possible some how to at least consider - those points of concern.

Cheers,
Cross

I understand the assumption of your theoretical module however the assumption itself is where I find there to be question in application. Particularly "is putting them to use as often as they are made available" this presumes quite a bit more than it may seem at first blush.

It assumes that the player is paying proper attention at all times throughout the match and fully understands the UI, this eliminates new bros and a number of causal players/players who can get distracted by comms or other actions.

It further assumes that they (the scanners) are made available at times when their use is also both available and applicable, e.g. there are hostile mercs within scan range and more importantly they are not applying threat to the user in such a manner as to inhibit scan use.

Both of these things have direct implications to player skill and experience, further they even hold some meaningful implications for relative player player skill and experience because a deeply outmatched player will have fewer opportunities to do much thinking or more rarefied behavior beyond run and shoot (or honestly spawn and die in many cases).

Now, the theoretical module you present seems quite solid to me if one runs with the assumption as presented, but it is the assumption itself which causes the departure of our views regarding actual battlefield conditions and thus my assertion that player skill - both personal and comparative - is quite relevant.

Sounds good, Cross. I would suggest that if significant rework to active scans looks like something that'll be far down the road, that we take interim "easing" actions to increase overall downtime and dull the edge of the more problematic devices (namely, Creodron Flux). Suggestions:

BSC Scanners: No Change
ADV Scanners: No Change
Creodron Active Scanner: Cooldown 15 sec ---> 20 sec
Creodron Flux Active Scanner: Range 200m ---> 150m, Angle: 90---> 60 degrees
Creodron Proximity Active Scanner: No Change
Duvolle Quantum Active Scanner: Visibility 20 sec ---> 15 sec
Duvolle Focused Active Scanner: No Change

I'd also recommend an interim increase in Active Scan WP (or) toggling WP payout to include team assists, should such a toggle be accessible by hotfix. Strong as these devices are, they pay insufficient WP.

Thanks for the break down on individual scanners, that's the type of data I find very useful. May I request a bit of a deeper dive so I'm 100% certain regarding the why of each listed instance being problematic (or a non-issue, as noted in your list) as I'd hate to fix one set of problems but create another by overlooking something that may be obvious to those outside my perspective.

Cheers,
Cross

What are some good Amarr Logi set ups?

I hate to say this but the Amarr Militia med set up works pretty well. I think that the higher armor points give you a chance to get closer to the friendly you are trying to help. Could be just me though.

Let me rephrase my question. What are some good PROTO Amarr Logi Setups?

Thank you for reminding me that I am still learning. I have seen an Amarr logi suit with four equipment slots.

That's not possible, the Amarr logistics only comes with 3 equipment slots across all tiers.

Well I have an Amarr suit I can't use yet that I will check on That has what looks like four slots there. Unless I am mixing it up with the Revanant suit I won as salvage.

Well I have an Amarr suit I can't use yet that I will check on That has what looks like four slots there. Unless I am mixing it up with the Revanant suit I won as salvage.

There is the PROTO FIT site that helps you build suits. I have made fittings without being a member to see what I liked.