Maken Tosch wrote:Yaerus Steel wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
Please pardon the delayed response; two compound questions:
1) Assuming the above were introduced as presented, what modules would you run on a competitively fit MinScout? Why?
2) If hp-tanked units are already accustomed to being scanned, how would an increase to scan profile affect them? In what way are they "penalized" if they were going to be scanned with or without the penalty?
1) Running a Min scout I would run as a Hacker or NK'r. This being the case a Hacker with extenders, damp, code breaker, kinkats to scoot by under most passives, and get to the point quickly. As a NK'r about the same thing but with damp, green, red bottle. I am not in anyway a competitive scout though.
2) It would affect them in two ways slow them down further and increase the range they are seen even on passives. Allowing for people choosing the non-tanked route to get a greater tactical advantage. If you can see your enemy and they cant see you yet, you could get that jump on them to cancel out any advantage they have in a head to head fight.
But then again that takes thinking on part of the player.
As a dedicated nova knifer with years experience now, I can say that dampening on a minscout is only good up to a certain point. I am just too use to being spotted on scans so I adapted in some ways to counter that. The hills, or any part of the terrain that is not a man-made structure, have a negative impact on the passive scans of players. Once a knifer hides in the hills, you are no longer able to utilize passive scans and thus forced to go in after them unless you happen to have active scanners fitted on you. If you don't you are then fighting on my terms where I have already adapted to listening for footsteps (thanks to my headset) and being all fast and dodgy on rolling hills. Even if I am forced to fight in a city where passive scans can see me, the structures provide enough cover against bullets. A crate* and a wall offer more EHP than any shield extender I could fit. In many case, I just stack nothing but kincats and damage mods for my knives and hope for the best.
* - shameful typo spotted
Adding a scan profile penalty to shield extenders would without question move EWAR interplay (and with it, Scout performance) further away from balance than toward it.
In competitive play and in a high percentage of High Mu pubs today, you're either below 21dB or you are always (at minimum, almost always) active scanned. This has made moot any effort to dampen by non-Scouts. Further, teamshared 21dB active scans wholly override middle and outer ring passive scans in a wide range of settings, including (but not limited to) small-to-medium sized sockets, large areas surrounding contested objectives, and all but the outskirts of most Ambush, Dom and Acq matches.
The only effective response to 21dB active scans is the squishy, dampened Scout suit; hitting these units with scan profile penalty would invite a disproportionate and likely substantial decline in their comparative performance. Even if 21dB active scans were not in play, I would advise strongly against this path as it impacts a non-target party (dampened scouts) by
far greater degree than it impacts the intended target party (dual tankers).
TL;DR - It is my opinion that adding a scan profile penalty to shield extenders would (1) go largely unnoticed by the high-profile dual tankers whom the penalty is supposed to discourage, (2) would detrimentally impact Scout performance as well as intra-class parity and (3) would worsen what is an already troubled state of EWAR interplay.
@ Yaerus - I'd love discuss these points in further and finer detail with you, but I must insist on our doing so elsewhere. Here, we gamble with the Wrath of Rattati. I'd suggest we move our conversation to its own thread or perhaps
Pokey's EWAR Workshop.
@ Maken - Terrain and obstructions absolutely impact line-of-slight scans, but I do not believe that these have any effect whatsoever on passive or active scan mechanics. Glad to test and confirm; please fill me in (elsewhere) on how one might duplicate what you've described above.