One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
11
   |
Posted - 2015.08.25 23:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Points of Discussion
PHASE I 1. Generally speaking, how do you feel about scan falloff? In short that scans should be more effective at short range, and less effective at long range. 2. What do you feel are appropriate detection conditions. For example, should it simply be you are either currently scanned or not scanned, as we currently have? Or should there be more variation in detection conditions. 3. Should scan conditions vary depending on variation between signature profile and scan precision? That is to say, once scanned, should the last effect vary depending on the difference in stats? 4. Should secondary actions such as running, sprinting, or firing a weapon affect signature profile? 5. How do you feel about current Scout bonuses? 6. Do you feel that passive scans should be constant scans are they are now? Or activate periodically?
1) I like the notion of fall off, but not necessarily the execution. The flexible range inner ring required a nerf to range extenders, such that they are for the most part immaterial. I would personally like to see them become a reasonable, fixed number.
2&3) I think it would be interesting if Active Scans had a little more variability. Like say if the duration you were scanned and the brightness you showed up on the display were more dynamic. That if you were a max dampened scout, and just barely scanned, you would show up as a faint blip, then quickly disappear, while if you were a heavy with no dampening skills or modules, you would show up very brightly and last for the duration of the scan.
Passive scans could have a similar dynamic. Perhaps with either Passive or Active (not both), the greater the difference in Precision and Profile would affect whether or not you could see direction faced. For example, if a scout did not have any Precision modules, while a Sentinel did, that Sentinel would still appear as just a dot, while if the difference were greater than 20 dB then the Heavy would have direction showing.
I also loathe the idea that Passive Scans are shared, and have always been. Now it is worse considering the increased size of FW and PC scans.
4) I do think that weaponry and activity levels should affect profile somehow. It doesn't even need to be great. Sometimes a 5 dB change in one direction can mean a lot. I also think that it should vary depending upon weaponry, as NKs obviously make less noise than PLCs or MDs.
Plus, this could lead to new skill tree branches for a lot of the weapons to decrease the amount they affect profile changes.
5) I am unsure how to feel about them. In one sense, they are adequate, minus the Amarr whose bonus is negated by the ineffectiveness of Range Amplification. Questions I have had in the past are whether or not Dampening should be more of a Role bonus, and not merely be restricted to Galente primarily (with Caldari being secondary, due to Low Slot distribution). I also do not like having the Role bonus being related to the Cloak given how poorly it currently functions, and how many scouts choose not to even run it.
I also question the lack of certain penalties. While it is currently not an issue, Armor Plated scouts were once a problem, and I would have liked to have seen an increased penalty to movement for the Scout class, and perhaps also the Logi class. I think that HP tanking should be a Sentinels forte, and in the past there has been enough overlap that it has been an issue.
6) I think that Passive scans should always be on, at least at this point, but I will reiterate that I do NOT think they should be shared, at all.
Hopefully that was helpful, and wasn't too jumbled up. Let me know if there are points I need to clarify.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 21:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Right now what are the biggest failure points of the scanning side, and what are the biggest failure points of the dampening side?
Shared scans for both.
With regards to dampening, it is how much you have to sacrifice in order to beat precision. Largely because ties go to the scanner, which is backwards in my opinion, and because it takes a greater number of dampeners in relation to the number of precision mods.
With regards to scanning, there seems to be a delay in information. As a result, someone like me knifing may show up after the kill instead of in real time. At this point that is what keeps us still relevant, but I don't think we should balance around broken mechanisms. I would like to see it fixed, then decide what to do from that point.
Also with scanning, reduced total range is a problem. I think it would be less so if we could find a way to make range amps effective again, but with shared scans it makes it a pain to fix. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|