Scanners are for scanning mediums and heavies, not lights.

Focussed scanners are for scanning lights.

Unfortunately we don't have basic or advanced focussed scanners, which is something that I think should be considered. So we'll have to look at proto level.

To dampen below a Gallente logi with a focussed scanner, a Galente scout needs 3 complex profile dampeners. It is impossible for the other three scouts without an active proto cloak.

I don't suggest changing this, as it is the main function of the equipment. I do however think the range should be reduced (50m), particularly if the cooldown (on Gal logis) and precision (on other suits) were buffed as per my earlier suggestions.

Right now what are the biggest failure points of the scanning side, and what are the biggest failure points of the dampening side?

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.

How much value would there be in giving a flat number addition to range amps?

For example 5m/10m/15m range enhancement rather than a percentage modifier to a baseline tiny scan range?

I thought math was hard? Brah.

It is.

For the OP of that particular thread.

Oh wait... who was that OP?

Was looking to see who was smart enough to realize I was talking about the person claiming you cannot break core reps.

You can still see what he said in quotes. Redaction doesn't remove/change those.

Also off-topic and not relevant to ewar discussion.

It's not a question of wrong or right.

Even a sh*t idea can carry the seed of a concept worth pursuing. So really the only complete ass kind of suggestion is deliberately crafted solely to cripple another playstyle or intended to **** off as many people as possible.

EWAR suffers from an uneven application that allows one type of unit to completely outperform all comers with the others being ok. But when you nerf the mechanic that allows that disparity the only thing that winds up happening is the lower tier units get shoved off the cliff.

Every unit should be able to have SOME use and utility in EWAR. It should not be the sole purview of scouts (this is a player opinion not CPM agenda) but scouts should definitely not be pushed off the top spot by any changes.

The problems as I see it are the stagnant meta situation on scouts and ewar. Scouts, rather like tanks, fatties ans assault suits have ranged at any given point from "win butan" to "why bother?"

One big problem with balancing ewar (passive at least) is the binary nature of the scans. Depending on the numbers, you either always show up, or you never do. This is why passive scans have been at the extremes of "I see everyone" to "I see no one". The 3 scan rings are a band-aid at best. What would really make balance easier is if we could have actions give modifiers to scan profile. Crouch walking lowers the profile, while shooting increases it. IT would make for a more dynamic system: I can't see the scout unless he begins sprinting and increases his profile, and a Min/AmScout have a chance of beating scans if they play tactically and crouch-walk as opposed to run.

I think Rattati said this can't happen, but honestly EWAR will always be OP or UP until we have more ways to find/beat the scans rather than only 2 numbers interacting.

As far as range extenders, giving them a flat number makes them useful on all suits, but could easily have the AmScout becoming the new CalScout of old.

Remember the cal scout has a range bonus inherent and can fit precision mods to match the amscout for said scan utility.

So the amarr and caldari would be roughly similar for detection capacity.

Honestly I think the calscout and amscout should switch bonuses. It makes sense lore wise: Cal would want to be able to find the sneaky GalScouts and the AmScout would want to see the fast MinScout coming from farther away, giving them more time to react.

Plus it requires them to sacrifice their main tank in order to capitalize on their bonus.

Agreed in concept. Though with today's active scans as they are, losing the damp bonus would require CalScout to commit 2 of 2 low slots to dampeners to remain off-radar. It can't hunt if it's permascanned.

Wouldn't lose the damp bonus. Alena was suggesting swapping the range and precision bonuses out. Not a total bonus swap.

Google Doc

Can't really say one way or another. Nothing stands out as terribly good or bad. First impression falls somewhere between slight improvement and zero sum game.

Is now a good time to gripe about the anemic-ass ranges?

I'm still not comprehending why you have a 120m radar and only up to 40m of detection (the inner ring)

Wouldn't lose the damp bonus. Alena was suggesting swapping the range and precision bonuses out. Not a total bonus swap.

Google Doc

Can't really say one way or another. Nothing stands out as terribly good or bad. Leaning toward "bad recon units still bad" but I'd really have to get my hands on these to say definitively.

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.