|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
   |
Posted - 2015.07.10 20:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:This is cool. During the scanning overhaul, we talked about having signature profile being demonstrated as bigger circles, so a 8 dB scout would be a tiny dot, and a sentinel, much bigger. Effectively allowing damped heavies to disguise as assault, and so on. the passive scanning mechanics still need work. you would think that each race wouldve tuned their sensors to perform based on their particular needs. right now its like every race is using off the shelf sensor packages from the same vendor. a 4th ring would be nice, and then assign the strongest precision to a particular race, at a particular range, for each ring.
IIRC, Passive Scans were deemed "OP Wallhacks" not that long ago. There's more potential for problem now than there was then thanks to 8x and 16x shared squad sight.
Are we really in a big hurry to make Passive Scans scans better?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 23:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:
[snip]
remove shared passives completely ...
Agreed 110%. Wonder if the Dev Team can handle this now that they have Aquarhead? This wasn't an option last December, but it might be now.
Vrain Matari wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
[snip]
We're all responding because Diablo has some cool ideas, but in terms of gameplay this is a step backwards. Also, shared scans are too powerful. We need to tune them down or, perhaps better in terms of gameplay, introduce various types of jammers/eccm.
Agreed. Keep those ideas coming, Diablo :-)
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 01:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
501st Headstrong wrote:Is it possible the Gal Sent can have a lower Db profile innanately so it can be a very good ambusher/ganker? If we repurpose the chevrons of suits to lessen UI clutter, Sentinels that can look like assaults could make tge suit appealing. 07
Recycled Idea!
* Scan Returns are displayed as circles on minimap; the higher the scan profile, the larger the circle.
New Idea!
* Remove on-screen chevrons from passive scan returns; passives paint to minimap only
* Chevrons appear when Active Scanned (team/squad) or acquired by Line of Sight (as is)
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 05:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ripley Riley wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
[snip]
remove shared passives completely ...
Agreed 110%. Wonder if the Dev Team can handle this now that they have Aquarhead? This wasn't an option last December, but it might be now. I would rather have a specific dropsuit role have shared squad passive scans. The obvious choice for this intel/recon role would be scout, but logi would be another option as they have the second best scan precision and range. Suddenly it becomes very useful to have a scout on the edges of the fire fight, passively lighting up potential targets for his squad to engage. If the logi was used for this intel role they could be an early warning system against scouts and flankers.
The underlined portion above does not compute. This is already the case as squad sight is already shared.
It was supposed to be turned off in early Uprising (1.4?), but something apparently went wrong. In previous discussions, Rattati indicated that disabling shared passives was a non-option. Circumstances may have changed as they've since hired Aquarhead.
Shared Passives just got a big upgrade with 8-man squads and 16-man platoons. If we had good reasons to want them gone then, we'll have really good reasons to want them gone now.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 05:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:I hate shared passives many times more than Gal Logi scans.
The "No HUD Mode" video has me thinking about alternatives; the glitch completely disabled every TacNet component and function.
If the Devs reverse engineered the bug, they might find that TacNet components can be disabled individually. We might not have the resources needed to disable shared passives, but we could (theoretically) disable the TacNet components which relay their intel to minimap and/or HUD.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
|
|
| |
|