DUST Search - Pokey's Workshop

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Pokey's Workshop - EWAR

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

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
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 18	Posted - 2015.08.23 11:03:00 - [5] - Quote Being seen through walls 24/7 is one of the most frustrating things you could possibly have someone endure in a shooter. It's a huge advantage that can't be easily quantified. There's a reason that in competitive COD, both teams always always ban the UAV as a gentlemen's agreement. We can spend months trying to design everything around our existing mechanics, and I don't see us finding any acceptable place for EWAR. Too many mechanics, too many edge cases, everything is a jumbled mess. As such, a complete redesign of the system is due methinks. Here are the steps I would take: Radar doesn't show chevrons in 3D, only on the minimap Radar "pulses" every second or so, so information is delayed by a second, allowing for some quick plays Sprinting should add +10dB to your profile Shooting should add +20dB to your profile Crouching should reduce your profile by -10dB (Hooray! Reason to crouch!) Cooking a grenade should add +30dB to your profile (That high pitched scream isn't exactly stealthy) Using an active scanner adds +100dB to your profile (Can't escape) All existing EWAR modules should be removed Set profile/scan values to this: Scouts: 35dB / 45dB Assaults: 45dB / 55dB Logistics: 45dB / 45dB Commando: 55dB / 65dB Sentinel: 65dB / 75dB By default: Scouts see assaults, Scouts see Logistics, Logistics see Assaults, Logistics see Logistics, Assaults see Commandos, Assaults see Sentinels, Commandos see Sentinels. Sprinting will reveal you to your own class (+logistics in the case of scouts). Shooting will reveal you to one class above your own. Crouching while shooting will only reveal you to your own class. Cooking a grenade will reveal you to two classes above your own. Cooking a grenade while crouching will reveal you to one class above your own. Then add weapon sound muffler modules that reduce weapon profile addition by a flat 5dB, these reduce the profile of all of your weapons and grenades. Next add sprinting sound mufflers that reduce your sprinting profile by a flat 5dB. Cloak should reduce profile by a flat 10dB. Active Scanners will be set at 60/50/40 (STD/ADV/PRO), so they can see a sprinting unit with a single sprint muffler. And that's about it. Its a big neutering to EWAR, because honestly it's a giant clusterfuck that we shouldn't even try to solve. Either you make scanning so powerful that you have to remain stealthy to be competitive, or you make scanning hilariously bad and then hiding from it becomes pointless. I have yet to see any option that will create a middle ground. AND THEN STEVE BUSCEMI SHOWS UP ON A FLYING PIG FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 18	Posted - 2015.08.23 11:04:00 - [6] - Quote And yes I am well aware that this is outside the realm of possibility, but this is what I think should happen. AND THEN STEVE BUSCEMI SHOWS UP ON A FLYING PIG FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON
Dont-be-a-D1CK Dead Man's Game 8	Posted - 2015.08.23 12:10:00 - [7] - Quote Suggestions that may be possible. Scan falloff, a decent feature, but the Scans effectiveness seems to strong on most suits. - In a MinScout I will frequently scan other Scouts though they beat my scan Db. - Assault/Logi passives also effective, but require module use to enchance them. (A tweak in stats so it's less effective in some cases would be welcome) The current system would be fine if there were more counters to being scanned. - I think dampening should be an option on all Scouts and all Suits. - H/M frames should also at least counter non-gallogi scans if fitted to do so - Light frames reaching 15db would be best with 2 damps CA/GA, 3 on MN/AM. With the above making dampeners more common, scanners could do with edits to scanner cooldown/durations as I think could be shorter on some variants, and maybe add an equipment limit - So only one of each variant can be equipped. - From there, adjustments could be made to add a variety of Scan effects if required. Ideally this would be awesome, and could be implemented in a few ways but I would like to see if scanner variants could be set to detect actions/motions, so when an area is scanned for a decent time duration all action adds enough to the scan db, the initial scan should not detect proto damp fittings unless they take action and this variant would technically be a motion scanner so it shoud not scan equipment. As the scanner would be less effective, the duration could be up to 30-60secs. So this ties in with the durations as the scans would need to be active, but determined by enemy movement/actions. Not constant for the scan duration. (This could also be tied to suit EWAR, though they need a different scan db. along with range amps buff) Range amps could be changed all together, into modules that increase motion detection along with some range. Scout bonuses... CA/GA are the better suits (damp bonus) Min (NK/Hack) is good enough that it's almost worth being scanned, while the Amarr is OK, it has no specialty the other scouts cannot perform. I feel that all Scouts first bonus should be EWAR, either all forms, or only damps, Secondary Bonus should play to each races strength just don't F with my speed hacks though I would consider all scouts being given an option to use NK rather than them being Minmatar only. ^^ As you may have noticed, kill perma scans, but keep scan detection working to counter EWAR fits - I mashed suit EWAR and scan EWAR together, as they should share pretty similar roles imo, a scan Scout being as effective as a scan Logi would be nice, if they are both fitted to do so, adding motion (sprint, jump, shoot, equipment use) detection would stop any suit from being invisible, while also killing perma scans \o/ Ban me once, shame on me Ban me twice, shame on you !!!
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.23 13:35:00 - [8] - Quote Ideal EWAR: Passive scans: Similar passive scan ranges to what we have now, with precision varying linearly with distance. Movement should affect profile (I like Cat Merc's idea). By default you should pick up a walking dropsuit one tier heavier than you at middle range (about 10-15m). There is no need for range amps. Weapons should have a db profile for firing, depending on weapon, which dampeners should reduce. It should be easier to dampen below very short range passive scans. Passive scans should be shared with fire teams only. Larger groups of mercs should be subdivided. Armour should increase db profile. Spotting: Targets in ads crosshairs should be broadcast to your fire team. Active scanning: This should be based on electronic signature rather than db (sound). This should work much like the current profiles, however should be unaffected by movement. Shields should increase signature. Active scanning should only light up enemies when active. Perhaps fire a wave out over an arc, lighting up enemies as it passes over them. Reduce focussed scanner range to 50m. With the exception on focussed scanners, it should be easier to hide from them with dampeners. For example, an assault suit with two dampeners and no shield mods should be able to avoid non-focussed scans. Perhaps the Gallente logi bonus should be concentrated on cooldown reduction. Scouts without shields should have a low enough signature to avoid active scans without damps. Damps would be needed to hide shield module sigs and to hide from passive scans. Generally one damp should do, two for extreme stealth. Simple modifications to existing EWAR: Active scanner scan duration -> 1 second. Focussed scanner range -> 50m Range amplifiers -> +45% range at complex -20% precision
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.23 14:30:00 - [9] - Quote At the most fundamental level: If shared passives are going to be disabled, passive scan design should favor hunting over hiding. If shared passives cannot be disabled, passive scan design should favor hiding over hunting. Further: Scouts have mobility and EWAR. That's it. If Falloff 2.0 returns EWAR as a strength to Scout, the game will be better balanced. * Will collect my thoughts and respond the points above w/ coffee :-) CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 18	Posted - 2015.08.23 14:32:00 - [10] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: At the most fundamental level: If shared passives are going to be disabled, passive scan design should favor hunting over hiding. If shared passives cannot be disabled, passive scan design should favor hiding over hunting. Can agree with that. AND THEN STEVE BUSCEMI SHOWS UP ON A FLYING PIG FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.23 14:55:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Falloff is a brilliant concept, but it could use some tuning. High intensity inner rings are designed to alert mercs to incoming backstab. This is arguably a free pass, but in a 1v1 setting reasonable arguments could be made either way. With shared squadsight, it isn't just the merc getting stalked who gets the free warning; it's him and 3-15 of his buddies. Knifing is tough enough without this added (and unreasonable) risk factor. 2. We could have alot of fun with this in theory, but I wouldn't want to over-complicate the system and/or implement anything which consumes more processing power or memory. 3. Someone once suggested displaying unit directional arrow if a passive scanned unit's profile is substantially higher than the scanner's precision. I like the idea, but I wouldn't call it a "must have". 4. No. See #2. 5. Scout intra-class parity was achieved with HF Charlie and lasted through last December. It has since been out-of-whack. If Falloff 2.0 returns passive scanning to competitive levels, there's a good chance we'll be able to get the AM Scout back into play without any major adjustments. As an aside, you've missed an elephant in the room, Pokey. That is, the GalLogi. Even if Passive Scans were buffed substantially, they still would not compete with today's GalLogi. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.23 15:24:00 - [12] - Quote *Simplified Falloff 2.0 Proposal* Passive Scans * Change the 3-ring system to a 2-ring system: short range and long range passives * Short Range passive scans assume today's Middle Ring values * Long Range passive scans assume today's Outer Ring values * Restore Range Extenders to former values * Restore Logi base Scan Range to former values Active Scans * Apply Falloff 2.0 "two-ring rules" to Active Scans ... * Short Range active scans ping at present values * Long Range active scans ping at discounted values (i.e. 130%) * Add recon-assist WP when scanned units are KO'd by teammates * Add to Active Scanners cloak's protracted equip/unequip delay *** Assumes shared passives are here to stay. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 18	Posted - 2015.08.23 15:34:00 - [13] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: * Add recon-assist WP when scanned units are KO'd by teammates Don't they already do that? AND THEN STEVE BUSCEMI SHOWS UP ON A FLYING PIG FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.23 15:36:00 - [14] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: * Add recon-assist WP when scanned units are KO'd by teammates Don't they already do that? Squad-mates only at the moment. If (for example) you're running solo and you ping redberries with an active scanner, your teammates will see the returns but you will not earn WP should they kill a scanned redberry. "Recon Assist" WP is only paid when a squaddie drops a redberry you've active scanned. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Llast 326 An Arkhos 8	Posted - 2015.08.23 17:47:00 - [15] - Quote Some suits appear as a V on the radar. This really needs a fix, it give me an idea of what the suit is and tells me facing. I know this is not a comprehensive write up about EWAR changes but, I bring this up as often as I can because it needs addressing for EWAR balance. MOAR Ladders SpadeGÇª Remember your Warbarge
dzizur Nos Nothi 683	Posted - 2015.08.23 19:03:00 - [16] - Quote Just a quick idea, because It always bothered me: Profile dampeners actually dampening footstep sounds, because it's kind of lame that you pack all your lows in a galscout with dampener, but still enemy can hear you comming.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.08.23 19:51:00 - [17] - Quote Some intial thoughts: - I'm rather happy with passive scans. I use precision enhancers and dampeners on many suits of almost all suit sizes. They are worthwhile and I can live with the system. Range extenders could do with a moderate buff - but the old values were excessive, partly because of the very large Calscout range bonus. - I'm very unhappy with active scans. At a certain tier of players in the match you're just permanently scanned because there'll always be a GalLogi somewhere on the map. In the context of that second point, here are two questions: - Would active scanners be useless if their range was cut significantly? E.g. ~60 m instead of ~100 m. - Would active scanners be useless if scan durations were be reduced? E.g. normal variants to 3 seconds, long duration scans to 6 seconds? Change cooldown appropriately. I don't mind the short-range wallhack. It can be countered through fitting (dampeners) and gameplay (avoid CQC). The long-range long-duration wallhack is very difficult to counter for many suit types though. And even if you do fit two complex dampeners on a scout - the gameplay interaction isn't very enjoyable both for the scanner and the scanned person. As for your discussion points: 1. Scan falloff is essential. I'd prefer it to be linear so any change to scan profile or precision makes a difference - basically I want to make the whole issue to be less binary. 2-3. I don't know what you're going at with scan conditions. I don't think scanners should do more than "There's a guy over there" and they probably shouldn't do much less either ("There are about 3 guys somewhere" is no useful info). Generally speaking I like linear systems, so I wouldn't like a system where the scan result changes in kind based on the difference between scan precision and scan profile. I would however like a system where passive scanning takes some time and the detection time depends on that difference. That way better scans linearly improve scans and the reward is always of the same type - that is easy to understand and intuitive. 4. Yes, activities should affect scan results. But it isn't trivial. A shotgun blast should increase scan profile. A remote explosive shouldn't. But a grenade throw maybe should - or maybe not? On a similar note: Should activities also affect scan precision? After all, it's not just the prey that tries to avoid detection, the hunter also keeps silent so he can hear better. 5.1 The per-level bonus to the cloak needs to go. Doing it like that was a bad idea. 5.2 In an optimal scenario ewar bonuses should provide a small edge, but not change what the suits are capable of. A Caldari scout should detect enemies slightly further ahead, but 50% further away. An amarr scout should detect enemies slightly better, not detect some that nobody else can detect. Again, I dislike binary rewards. 6. I'm fine with constant millisecond precise passive scans. That doesn't mean it has to be instant. A well dampened target could take a while to scan down - if he lingers long enough. I wouldn't like scans to be 'turn based'. That means I need to monitor my radar much more closely to find out when the intel is new and when it is old. My gripe is more of a UI issue more than a gameplay issue. Anything can be balanced, but a turnbased system would likely be less fun since it doesn't provide immediate feedback. Some more thoughts on active scanners: - Should the scanner be visible on the radar of the scanned person? This was mentioned in a devblog during open beta, but never implemented. - Should scanned enemies only be visible while the scanner is active? When the trigger is released the enemy disappears from the radar immediately. - 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. Basically anything that makes active scanning more "active" - both from the perspective of the scanner and the target.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.23 20:31:00 - [18] - Quote What about reducing the scan duration of all active scans to 1 second? This way they give you intel on where enemies are coming from, but doesn't allow you to use their exact position to aid you in combat. More of a strategic advantage rather than a combat advantage. I suggest also reducing the focussed scanner's range to 50m, as it's short duration will no longer be a drawback. What do you think? Edit: Just thought of an issue. It would be difficult to get intel assist wps. Perhaps have a system similar to transport assists, where you get wps if an enemy dies within say, 15 seconds of being scanned.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.23 21:14:00 - [19] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: *Simplified Falloff 2.0 Proposal* Passive Scans * Change the 3-ring system to a 2-ring system: short range and long range passives * Short Range passive scans assume today's Middle Ring values * Long Range passive scans assume today's Outer Ring values * Restore Range Extenders to former values * Restore Logi base Scan Range to former values Active Scans * Apply Falloff 2.0 "two-ring rules" to Active Scans ... * Short Range active scans ping at present values * Long Range active scans ping at discounted values (i.e. 130%) * Add recon-assist WP when scanned units are KO'd by teammates * Add to Active Scanners cloak's protracted equip/unequip delay Notes * Assumes shared passives are here to stay * Can be accomplished within the confines of existing assets and mechanics, I believe * Have not yet looked at these values in a spreadsheet; may require slight tweaking (please standby) Adipem Nothi wrote: *Simplified Falloff 2.0 Proposal, v1.1* Passive Scans * Change the 3-ring system to a 2-ring system (short range and long range) * Short Range passive scans assume today's Middle Ring values (or close to) * Long Range passive scans assume today's Outer Ring values (or close to) * Restore Range Extenders to former values (or close to) * Set Logi base Scan Range to 20m * Set Scout base Scan Range to 25m Active Scans * Apply Falloff 2.0 "two-ring rules" to Active Scans ... * Short Range active scans ping at present values * Long Range active scans ping at discounted values (i.e. 130%) * Make Active Scans "Active" such that returns are illuminated only while actively painted * Add to Active Scanners 50% (or so) of cloak's protracted equip/unequip delay * Add recon-assist WP when scanned units are KO'd by teammates Notes * Assumes shared passives are here to stay * Good chance of freeing up system resources * Can be accomplished within the confines of existing assets and mechanics (I believe) CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 6	Posted - 2015.08.25 06:03:00 - [20] - 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

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.25 08:38:00 - [21] - Quote Looks like Rattati's shaking things up! Retracting positions/proposals on Passives Scans until the dust settles. Meanwhile, this may still be relevant: Active Scans: Beam Scanning vs Snapshot Scanning Would love to hear your thoughts. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.25 17:42:00 - [22] - Quote Jesus, you guys are still at this? Haven't you realized yet that the more constant insistence on going backwards and altering fundamentals inhibits any chances of the game actually moving forward and expanding its scale and scope? How is there ever to be any new development if time and assets are constantly being used to redefine/rewrite/respec old/existing developments? Why not try to lend design ideas for perhaps new modules or systems that use the existing mechanics, exactly as they are, but deliver the end results you're trying to achieve? ie higher caliber damps, cloak mods etc? Seriously, you can't spend the next year also reinventing the damn wheel... Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 393	Posted - 2015.08.25 18:21:00 - [23] - Quote I wonder if it is possible to have target acquisition times for both passive radial scans and tagging targets. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.08.25 23:52:00 - [24] - 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.
CeeJ Mantis Mantodea MC 207	Posted - 2015.08.26 01:33:00 - [25] - Quote Here is a repost from a previous thread: Personally, I like what I see so far. Here are some of my ideas from my perspective as a long-time ewar scout, and someone who runs precision amps on most suits: -Sprinting and jumping increase profile. -Slight increase in dampening values so basic cloaks have a profile reduction value, and proto cloaks can help make you a bit stealthier (B 5%, A 10%, P 15%) -Adjustment to scan rings. The current amount (S 20%, M 50% L 100%) means that adding precision/range amps to a suit feels ineffective when your long-range is the most dominant part. I like an even 33%, 33%, 33%. -Display short, medium, and long scan ranges and coresponding precision values on fitting screen. -Add scan strength to the "You have been scanned" display so you have more info on how to counter it. (possibly the duration as well) -Basic active scans aren't very good as they only scan heavies and basic equipment. Perhaps make it 42 instead of 46 so medium suits without dampening can be scanned, but ones with it can hide. -Range amos need a slight boost. Perhaps increase their value by 5%. (the basic range amp is essentially the worse module in the game as it only adds 1.5 meters if you have max ewar skills to your range on most suits) -Vehicle scans should share with team (currently squad only) -The more you share active scanning data with your team, the lower the precision/duration. Permascan is not very engaging for either side. -Remove cloak scanning range penalty, and rework scouts so they have higher (worse) base scan precision, and make cloak fields boost precision when active (probably by an amount that increases with tier). Bonuses from this system include: 1. Makes it an active and time limited system so that the scans aren't a constant boon. 2. Hiding and seeking are tied to the same limited resource 3. You can be scanny, or shooty, but not simultaneously. 4. Putting precision/range amps on a scout doesn't feel like a waste as they are no longer negated by using your signature equipment. -Ensure that the larger squad sizes in FW and PC don't cause these systems to overshare information. Combined with proposed changes, this could make ewar more dynamic, and hopefully more fun for hiders, and seekers alike. Maybe we see more ewar scouts instead of hp or biotic stacked ones, or hopefully ewar logis that run pecision amps. Longest plasma cannon kill: 236.45m
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 393	Posted - 2015.08.26 03:43:00 - [26] - Quote Expanding on the Target Acquisition Time thing: Entering someone's passive scan radius does not immediately reveal you to them, it instead takes time for them to register you... something like Time_to_Reveal =2 / sinh(Target_Scan_Profile / Scan_Precision) which would result in time outlined in This Spreadsheet The spreadsheet just outlines base detection values, without consideration of Status Effects that could/should be added (things like Shooting, Jumping, Crouching, Sprinting, Not Moving), which would modify the Signature Profile. Active Scanners could use the same setup, and instead of being single bursts, they could be a "Hold-Down" to scan (with the time revealed stat decreased on them to reduce Infinite Scans)... Also, I like the 3 rings setup we have now as well...and I think Range Amps need buffed. Finally, Target Spotting needs to be improved...so reveal enemies on TacNet that you aim at, but the longer you aim at them, the longer they remain on TacNet for everyone. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
haerr Ancient Exiles. 3	Posted - 2015.08.26 11:37:00 - [27] - Quote i thought further dust ewar changes would require ccp to rework code that they did not want to put the resources into reworking can someone confirm that ccp has changed their collective mind about this?
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.26 11:40:00 - [28] - Quote haerr wrote: i thought further dust ewar changes would require ccp to rework code that they did not want to put the resources into reworking can someone confirm that ccp has changed their collective mind about this? Indeed! Rattati has a post up in Pokey's other thread. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.26 12:34:00 - [29] - Quote I am watching this thread to see how it progresses, and what the community cobbles together as acceptable mechanics. As I don't pay a lot of attention to EWAR in my day-to-day gameplay as I run sentinel and commando suits, I ask that people bear with me when I ask seemingly "stupid questions," whether out of ignorance, or because if I feel the need to quote or cite your contributions, I would like to insure that I am not misrepresenting the ideas here. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
CeeJ Mantis Mantodea MC 207	Posted - 2015.08.26 12:53:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I am watching this thread to see how it progresses, and what the community cobbles together as acceptable mechanics. As I don't pay a lot of attention to EWAR in my day-to-day gameplay as I run sentinel and commando suits, I ask that people bear with me when I ask seemingly "stupid questions," whether out of ignorance, or because if I feel the need to quote or cite your contributions, I would like to insure that I am not misrepresenting the ideas here. As a sentinel and commando, I run 1 precision amp. If you do the ewar math, then you get very interesting results. Helps a lot with HMG v other heavies tobsee them first, and further augments my ability to be a plc marksman. A single one (needs to be complex on a commando) is all you need. Give it a try. Longest plasma cannon kill: 236.45m



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.