Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5
   |
Posted - 2015.07.21 17:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Zaria Min Deir wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
7. Zaria Min Deir said so.
Always a good reason to do something.  But I said what now? Ah, yes, something about shared passive scans, and how I personally would be happy to be rid of them. They are indeed problematic. I will say Tesfa makes some good points about the emphasis placed on squad versus solo play, however... I also find there to be a good case to be made for a clear difference between active scans that are more easily accessible to the squad, but are limited in duration and frequence and need to be, by their very nature, more proactive, and passive scans, that are, yes, limited by location, but are more immediate, and thus should perhaps be limited to personal use. Now, removing shared passive scans would limit the scout recon role somewhat. As Tesfa rightly pointed out, there are language barriers and not everyone can use voice comms, either at all or all the time.  Not the simplest issue. In the end it comes down to what the designed purpose of the roles and the types of scanning are... Thank you, Zaria. In response to your and Tesfa's points: If it is a role/function of the Scout to share his passive recon with squad ... 1. Why are passive scans of all unit types shared? Should they be? 2. Why is the base scan range of the Logi superior to that of the Scout? Should it be? 3. Why is the Scout not paid WP for "scouting"? Should he be? 4. Last December, we ruled in consensus that recon scouts were bad for balance. Should we have?
Maybe I can shed some light on this, or get a Dev to kick me in the kitten for being wrong if I'm wrong 
1. I believe it is the overall intent as of this time for passive scans not to be shared in general.
The nature of the response to item #1 defines the context for the following.
2. Logistics scans, including the active scanner, both bonus and equipment, should have another look for polish and scaling once passives are not shared/their sharing is more limited. A trade off must be established which is not currently present and leaving (for example) the GalLogi w/active scans in the same state as it is now after a change would be problematic. Either the logi, the scanner, or both will need a look.
3. Due to a mechanical barrier in the code AFAIK. Conceptually I would say yes a scout should be earning for recon but I do not know how likely we are to be able to see that translated into a mechanical reality. This is a recurring issue among roles in general, in that what is most tactically valuable can often not be the most effective method for earning. A state which is certainly not ideal.
4. I think that at the time it was the proper call to make, broadly speaking, but it would need to be revisited if the context of #1 is applied. Further being the right call at the time does not mean it was or is a perfect solution or without flaw. The mechanical side of scout role definition could use better polish IMO, but the what and the how are answers I'd turn to a full community thread for as my own scout play does not qualify me - in my view - to make such assessments sans input.
0.02 ISK
CPM 1, reelection platform here.
|
Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 17:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Overpowered
* Scrambler Rifle
* Active Scans
* Shared Squad Sight
* Armor Modules (Infantry)
* Large Blaster Turrets
* Armor Hardeners
* Repair Tool WP
Underpowered
* Active Scan WP
* MagSec
* Ion Pistol
* Scrambler Pistol
* Breach Shotgun
* AM Scout
* Breach Mass Driver
* Assault Swarm Launcher
* Large Missile Turrets
Wonky (Needs Polish)
* Framerate Drops
* Sniper Rifle Handling
* Cloak Handling
* Bolt Pistol Magnetism
* Pub Payouts
* EWAR
* Strongboxes
* Gallente Research Facility
^ My two cents. Plus cents from Talos, Pokey and Vesta.
OP list
Largely agree with the following exceptions.
- Armor hardeners aren't the problem, it's passive vehicle reps combining with stacked hardeners. Make reps active mods and then tune the values of reps and hardeners to find proper balance.
- Rep Tool WP isn't simply OP, as even logi focused on using rep tools in a squad can still readily go ISK negative. Rescaling both the mechanic and values for Rep Tool earnings would likely be a good move, as I've actually advocated since closed beta, but pulling them back while leaving the current burden of cost is improper.
- Armor Modules (Infantry) - I think shields need a buff rather than armor mods a nerf. Granted in a mathmatical zero sum assessment that's the same net change but two factors change it in the live game context. First the net effect on TTK, second the net effect on diversity of offerings. In my view, overall game value is better served by a more robust set of offerings from the shield line than by a nerf to armor mods.
Underpowered
- Active scan WP - Generally agreed but with the qualfier that it not be a universal buff, rather a lessor WP value be added to team wide scans.
- Scrambler Pistol - Not sure it's UP when considering the possible alpha of a headshot (with the onboard bonus included of course). I haven't run active tests so my perception is highly anecdotal, but I have seen it doing some real work on the field. This goes in my "cannot support without more data" pile.
Otherwise generally inclined to agree.
Wonky (Needs Polish)
I'd personally put frame rate drops and the gal map under the general heading "performance" and simply state that game wide performance needs to be further polished and increased until we have a min 30 (better 60) fps standard for the game.
But maybe I'm nitpicking there.
In either case generally agree on the listed items.
CPM 1, reelection platform here.
|