|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
   |
Posted - 2015.08.23 09:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
The purpose of these Workshops is to provide a structure discussion of various topics of interest voted upon by the community. I will not tolerate trolling, shitposting, or senseless arguing and will aggressively moderate these discussions with liberal use of the report feature. We're here to be productive and I won't waste my time or anyone elses.
This workshop's topic is Electronic Warfare, or more commonly known as EWAR. Members of community have asked to have a discussion on this topic as there are still some issues with it in general. There are some aspects of EWAR which are arguably flawed on a very core level which is why I would like to start this discussion with talking about what the community feels the ideal EWAR system would be like, and then reverse engineer it down to what is more realistic for the current development team.
A critical issue that has often plagued DUST is a lack of clear vision for where where systems need to go, which is why I want to start with producing a clear vision of the 'Ideal EWAR' so we know where each iterative change needs to move towards. I first want to hammer out some key principles, and it is my hope that we can come to a general consensus on these key points before moving on to broader details. The first few posts of this thread will be updated regularly as the conversation pans out. Please try to prevent scope creep and focus on the general points of discussion listed below. We will get into deeper details later.
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?
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 09:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
RESERVED
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 09:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
RESERVED
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 09:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
RESERVED
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.25 06:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hey Pokey,
One thing on top of my mind these days is intel sharing:
Who shares and sees what when. The most difficult scans should have the most payout, but not be overly powerful such as passive squad sharing should not expose HUD chevrons, especially on cloaked targets.
On the:
Overview Map
Minimap
HUD
When:
line of sight
squad mate line of sight
team mate line of sight
personal crosshair on target
squad mate crosshair on target (maybe needs action)
team mate crosshair on target (maybe needs action)
within personal passive scan range
within squad mate passive scan
within team mate passive scan
within personal active scan range
within squad mate active scan
within team mate active scan
etc
What:
Chevron
Map Blip
Health Bar
Also, what actions should increase or decrease your profile
crouching - decrease
firing - increase
active scanning - increase
cloaking - decrease
etc
This is my WIP, so take it as input into the discussions.
[img]http://puu.sh/jNGQz/7e770ebd24.png[/img]
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 01:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ok then. My first day off from work in the last 4.5 weeks. I apologize for neglecting this thread, gimme a little time to catch back up and I'll see where we are at.
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 10:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:
- Active scanners could also be based around "time on target". Pull out scanner, aim it at a target, hold down the trigger. The scan e.g. starts at 60 dB and precision is reduced by 10 dB per second as long as the target is still inside the cone. Precision decreases until it reaches maximum precision for that scanner, e.g. 28 dB after ~3 seconds. The charge-meter in the bottom right could be used to indicate scan progress. When precision is smaller than profile, the enemy pops up on the radar until the trigger is released. When the enemy leaves the scanner's cone the precision resets.
- An active dampener as a direct counter to active scanners (use wrist-computer for graphical representation). Upon activation the active dampener reduces scan profile for approximately the duration of one active scanner cooldown. The active dampener doesn't have to be held up to be in effect. Cooldown is twice the active duration.
This caught my eye because its very similar to something I was thinking about. The idea is to avoid Active Scanners having a 'permascan" feature which I think we can all agree on as being something that is not a good thing. Here is my version of what I think Stefan was getting at.
- Active Scanners have an charge meter much like Cloaks, that discharge while in use and recharge when not in use.
- Scanners have a minimum precision and duration
- While active, precision gradually improves.
- Because there is a max duration of scan, there is an effective max precision.
- If a target's profile ever exceeds the current precision of the scanner, the target will show up on scans.
- Targets will appear on scans for the duration of the scan (and potentially a short time after)
- The closer a target is to the max signature of the scanner, the less time they will spend on scans, and the more time the scanner will need to dedicated to scanning down that target.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/leowen/media/activescanner_zpsw9lnfy7h.png.html
Thoughts?
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 20:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
New content doesn't do you much good if core concepts are still broken. You dont build an expansion onto your house if the main roof is caving in. Besides, Cloaks at least to some extent are active dampeners.
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 03:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Unless we see some actual usage statistics, and average kills per spawn, quoting market data is wildly unhelpful. If we lost all the EZ mode FOTM jerks but the regulars stuck around and still devastate, then that would say quite a lot about the class.
But market data alone, in a vacuum is next to useless.
I think a more proper metric would be "What percentage of the playerbase uses this role compared to the total playerbase"
I mean as an extreme example, if 50% of the people were scouts but now it's closer to 20% (appx where it should be) that could also explain a more drastic drop in total scouts.
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 05:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:el OPERATOR wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Wife's in labor :-)
Back later ! Good Luck!! All good! 9lbs 5oz, 21.5 inches, born ~3.5hrs ago. Too big for scout work. Healthy as a horse though :-) Carry on, gents. o7
Yay for Lil' Nothi!
"That little sh*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|