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

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.26 13:21:00 - [31] - Quote CeeJ Mantis wrote: -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. Agreed 100% on this point. Though I would point out that it'd need to be 41dB to pickup undampened Assaults. CeeJ Mantis wrote: -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%. -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) Made this for you: Google Doc: Current Passives vs Ceej's Proposed Passives My two cents: Would be bad for knifeplay. Really bad for knifeplay with shared passives. Personally think that something something like this would be better balanced, given EWAR mechanics in their present form. No telling whether or not these numbers would work well with future EWAR mechanics. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.26 13:21:00 - [32] - Quote CeeJ Mantis wrote: 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. I have. I was never able to extend the detection circle past the center ring. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.26 14:28:00 - [33] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CeeJ Mantis wrote: 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. I have. I was never able to extend the detection circle past the center ring. Speaking of which: making the full scan radius of the dropsuit fill the actual radar HUD would be freaking amazing. Doesn't do any good to see a red dot appear superimposed on the little icon representing you. Even in a fatsuit that usually means you're dead. The way is works at the moment, the radar is useful to see the positions of targets further away, mainly scanned by active scanners or squad passives. For targets scanned by your own passives we have the chevrons on the HUD, which are more useful for enemies who are very close, like round a corner. I find this system works pretty well.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.26 15:09:00 - [34] - Quote Chevrons are more useful to chasing fast-movers. Fatsuits are a bit... I don't know how to describe how useless the radar is on a fatsuit. To the point I had to re-train myself to look at the radar when I started up the assault tree. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Moochie Cricket Fatal Absolution 1	Posted - 2015.08.26 15:36:00 - [35] - Quote Could scans apply to main objectives and installations? Such as an unhacked/enemy letter will not show up unless actively/passively scanned. Same would go for turrets, supply depots, crus, etc. It would sure make aquisition more interesting. Caldari REALLY 514
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.26 15:49:00 - [36] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I don't know how to describe how useless the radar is on a fatsuit. Perhaps when solo. Logi passives are incredibly strong and are shared throughout the squad. Tell your repslave to run a Precision Enhancer or three. Better yet, tell him to run a precision enhanced GalLogi. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 1	Posted - 2015.08.26 16:40:00 - [37] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: PHASE I[/center] 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. Scan falloff is a good thing. Stealth means avoiding direct confrontation, so if you have decided to engage in short range your going to be picked up. 2. We already do have some nuance in ewar. This currently works well between medium frames, commandos and heavies. Its only the extreme between proto scouts being invisible to everyone except a proto gal logi that you have that conflict between scanned or not. The only thing is to have some fall off for active scanners. They should boost your passives no question about it, but beyond 75 m it should drop off, every 25 m. So 75 would become the new inner ring 125 m would be the second ring, 175 outer ring. Max damp scouts can get no closer than 75 m from being active scanned but can still move about beyond that . Scouts get to retain some mobility despite the best scans on the field, Gal logi gets to keep thier bonus and protect thier squad from anyboy with in rail rifle range. 3. Depends on the on screen effect. 4. No. this would kill the scout class dead. 5. You'll have to ask more dedicated scouts than me, but the bonuses right now are fine, even if a bit low per level. Amarr scouts could use some love. I have zero problem getting under all but proto scans, and i only have level 3 / 4 gallente minmatar scouts with a basic cloak. 6. Yes. leave them as they are. I already have enough on my plate in my logi suits (who are ewar equipped) to worry about switching on or off my passive scans. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me. "I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.26 17:50:00 - [38] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I don't know how to describe how useless the radar is on a fatsuit. Perhaps when solo. Tell your repslave to run a Precision Enhancer or three. Better yet, tell him to run a precision enhanced GalLogi. TW is OP and creates endless QQ, current active scanning being a great example. If that logi needs to be told to PE he's in the wrong business. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.26 17:54:00 - [39] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 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. I'm reading that post more as an exasperated guy basically saying, "F it, you do whatever then" versus a statement of willingness to do any more, any farther in reworking the existing fundamentals. But that is, apparently, just me. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.26 18:24:00 - [40] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I don't know how to describe how useless the radar is on a fatsuit. Perhaps when solo. Tell your repslave to run a Precision Enhancer or three. Better yet, tell him to run a precision enhanced GalLogi. I don't have a repslave. It's how I learned to love the cal and minsents. However, my habits are off-topic. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 14:26:00 - [41] - Quote Somewhat random thought and recommendation: Line-of-Sight target intel is not presently shared. If I recall correctly, it used to be, back in early Uprising and looking at Rattati's new EWAR grid, seems like it might be reinstated down the road. If it is to be reinstated, I'd recommend limiting its sharing to when aiming-down-sights. "Regular" line-of-sight is extremely lenient in terms of detection criteria. Pan and scan everything in range. In my opinion, it'd make for better gameplay and better balance if "scoping" a target translated to scanning (as opposed to 'looking in general direction of'). Further, if a "scoped and scanned" target is killed within a reasonable timeframe, a small amount of intel assist WP could be paid. Among other things, this would make for more interesting Overwatch gameplay and & Sniper / Spotter interplay. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.27 15:21:00 - [42] - Quote Also adipem, if you successfully hit your target let the target ping. So that plus your aim down sight statement. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
DDx77 Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 348	Posted - 2015.08.27 16:44:00 - [43] - Quote There are a lot of good constructive ideas in this thread I think overall CatMerc's post might be the best option I don't mind the scan falloff but I would like the range modules to be much more effective. I would like some feedback on adjusting how these modules interact with the scan rings. I have uhh...well here's my idea - What if each tier allowed greater access to the middle and outer rings but had penalties to do so? basic: + %15 range starting from the beginning of the middle ring. - with %25 increase to your scan profile (per module) std: + %20 range starting from the middle of the middle ring. - with %35 increase to your scan profile (per module) pro: + %25 range starting from the beginning of the middle ring. - with %40 increase to your scan profile (per module) I also noticed quite often a Heavy will sneak up on me and not be on radar or even an assault Generally you just assume they had a dampener on their suit but the performance issues this game is known for cause me to always question this. So what about on the kill screen we also get to see what their DB is? Or is that way too much info?
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.08.27 16:47:00 - [44] - Quote I made a thread about active scanners here complete with spreadsheet. Basic idea is to make them active and work similar to a cloak. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:05:00 - [45] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Also adipem, if you successfully hit your target let the target ping. So that plus your aim down sight statement. 1. "Scoping" one's target is a premeditated and precise tactical action. Spinning and spraying after getting hit in the back is absolutely not premeditated or precise. 2. Assume for the sake of argument that high intensity inner rings are weakened and/or disabled, the expressed goal being to improve backstab efficiency for better balanced gameplay. Spin-and-spray scan mechanics would negate the change. 3. If Intel WP were to be paid for "spotting", it'd be over-the-top to pay it out to everyone in Blob A who sprayed at Blob B each and every time Blob B takes a casualty. It would no longer be Intel. It'd just be free WP atop assist WP. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 18:05:00 - [46] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I made a thread about active scanners here complete with spreadsheet. Basic idea is to make them active and work similar to a cloak. Reads almost exactly like what I wrote up the other day: Active Scans: Beam Scanning vs Snapshot Scanning Didn't realize I was repeating your idea quite nearly verbatim. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Llast 326 An Arkhos 8	Posted - 2015.08.27 18:34:00 - [47] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also adipem, if you successfully hit your target let the target ping. So that plus your aim down sight statement. 1. Scoping a target is a premeditated and precise tactical action. Spinning and spraying after getting hit in the back is absolutely not premeditated or precise. 2. Assume for the sake of argument that high intensity inner rings are weakened and/or disabled, the expressed goal being to improve backstab efficiency for better balanced gameplay. Spin-and-spray scan mechanics would negate this change. 3. If Intel WP were to be paid for spotting, it'd be over-the-top to pay it out to everyone in Blob A who sprayed at Blob B each and every time Blob B takes a casualty. It would no longer be Intel. It'd just be free WP atop assist WP. My Recommendation: * A spotter can spot only one target at a time. * To do so, the spotter scopes a target for a full second. * If the target dies within X seconds of being spotted, the spotter is paid Intel WP. My two cents, of course. Edit: All of this assumes that Rattati wants LoS intel to be shared. Very well might be better off not sharing it at all. I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. MOAR Ladders SpadeGÇª Remember your Warbarge
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.08.27 18:53:00 - [48] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I made a thread about active scanners here complete with spreadsheet. Basic idea is to make them active and work similar to a cloak. Reads almost exactly like what I wrote up the other day: Active Scans: Beam Scanning vs Snapshot Scanning Didn't realize I was repeating your idea quite nearly verbatim. Brilliant minds think alike! Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 18:53:00 - [49] - Quote Llast 326 wrote: I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. No telling. But I definitely wouldn't want to see dampened units painted to TacNet every time someone sprays hipfire at them. If panic spray negates your damps, why not run HP in the first place? Like everyone else. Unless you're a Level 5 MN Scout with pro knives playing extremely carefully, you're going to take panic spray no matter what. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.27 19:58:00 - [50] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. No telling. But I definitely wouldn't want to see dampened units painted to TacNet every time someone sprays hipfire at them. If panic spray negates your damps, why not run HP in the first place? Like everyone else. This would be a major blow to stealth and backstab gameplay. If someone's shooting at you, odds are your stealth play has failed anyway. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:06:00 - [51] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. No telling. But I definitely wouldn't want to see dampened units painted to TacNet every time someone sprays hipfire at them. If panic spray negates your damps, why not run HP in the first place? Like everyone else. This would be a major blow to stealth and backstab gameplay. If someone's shooting at you, odds are your stealth play has failed anyway. Say I spot you and flank you all the while remaining undetected. Say I stalk you and wait until you're all alone and distracted. Still undetected. Say I sneak up right behind you, evading your LoS and everyone else's. Say I then shotgun you in the back, undetected up until the moment of attack. You're an HMG Heavy. What happens next? And how did I fail at stealth play? CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 395	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:10:00 - [52] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also adipem, if you successfully hit your target let the target ping. So that plus your aim down sight statement. 1. Scoping a target is a premeditated and precise tactical action. Spinning and spraying after getting hit in the back is absolutely not premeditated or precise. 2. Assume for the sake of argument that high intensity inner rings are weakened and/or disabled, the expressed goal being to improve backstab efficiency for better balanced gameplay. Spin-and-spray scan mechanics would negate this change. 3. If Intel WP were to be paid for spotting, it'd be over-the-top to pay it out to everyone in Blob A who sprayed at Blob B each and every time Blob B takes a casualty. It would no longer be Intel. It'd just be free WP atop assist WP. My Recommendation: * A spotter can spot only one target at a time. * To do so, the spotter scopes a target for a full second. * If the target is killed by a squaddie within X seconds of being spotted, the spotter is paid Intel WP. My two cents, of course. Edit: All of this assumes that Rattati wants LoS intel to be shared. Very well might be better off not sharing it at all. The reason I don't like it for Zooming only is that not all weapons can zoom...Nova Knives and Forge Guns are some of the weapons that would be great to be able to "spot" with (Forge Guns for relaying the positions of vehicles)...I do however agree that it shouldn't be instantly shared with the squad/team, there should be a delay...and WP rewards for spotting Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:13:00 - [53] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also adipem, if you successfully hit your target let the target ping. So that plus your aim down sight statement. 1. Scoping a target is a premeditated and precise tactical action. Spinning and spraying after getting hit in the back is absolutely not premeditated or precise. 2. Assume for the sake of argument that high intensity inner rings are weakened and/or disabled, the expressed goal being to improve backstab efficiency for better balanced gameplay. Spin-and-spray scan mechanics would negate this change. 3. If Intel WP were to be paid for spotting, it'd be over-the-top to pay it out to everyone in Blob A who sprayed at Blob B each and every time Blob B takes a casualty. It would no longer be Intel. It'd just be free WP atop assist WP. My Recommendation: * A spotter can spot only one target at a time. * To do so, the spotter scopes a target for a full second. * If the target is killed by a squaddie within X seconds of being spotted, the spotter is paid Intel WP. My two cents, of course. Edit: All of this assumes that Rattati wants LoS intel to be shared. Very well might be better off not sharing it at all. The reason I don't like it for Zooming only is that not all weapons can zoom...Nova Knives and Forge Guns are some of the weapons that would be great to be able to "spot" with (Forge Guns for relaying the positions of vehicles)...I do however agree that it shouldn't be instantly shared with the squad/team, there should be a delay...and WP rewards for spotting Knives, Shotguns, HMGs, Forge Guns. Switch out to your sidearm, scope the target with ADS, switch back. Why not? CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Llast 326 An Arkhos 8	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:28:00 - [54] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. No telling. But I definitely wouldn't want to see dampened units painted to TacNet every time someone sprays hipfire at them. If panic spray negates your damps, why not run HP in the first place? Like everyone else. This would be a major blow to stealth and backstab gameplay. If someone's shooting at you, odds are your stealth play has failed anyway. Say I spot you and flank you, taking care to run wide to avoid detection. Say I stalk you and wait until you're all alone and distracted. Still undetected. Say I sneak up right behind you, evading your LoS and everyone else's. Say I then shotgun you in the back, undetected up until the moment of attack. You're an HMG Heavy. What happens next? And how did I fail at stealth play? Lets say you only mark a target if your Precision beats their Profile. Would that solve that issue? MOAR Ladders SpadeGÇª Remember your Warbarge
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:32:00 - [55] - Quote Llast 326 wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. No telling. But I definitely wouldn't want to see dampened units painted to TacNet every time someone sprays hipfire at them. If panic spray negates your damps, why not run HP in the first place? Like everyone else. This would be a major blow to stealth and backstab gameplay. If someone's shooting at you, odds are your stealth play has failed anyway. Say I spot you and flank you, taking care to run wide to avoid detection. Say I stalk you and wait until you're all alone and distracted. Still undetected. Say I sneak up right behind you, evading your LoS and everyone else's. Say I then shotgun you in the back, undetected up until the moment of attack. You're an HMG Heavy. What happens next? And how did I fail at stealth play? Lets say you only mark a target if your Precision beats their Profile. Would that solve that issue? Maybe. Which Precision value though? Base Precision? At the moment, everyone's Precision is pretty strong in shotgun/knife range. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Llast 326 An Arkhos 8	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:47:00 - [56] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: Lets say you only mark a target if your Precision beats their Profile. Would that solve that issue? Maybe. Which Precision value though? Base Precision? At the moment, everyone's Precision is pretty strong in shotgun/knife range. I was thinking Base. If it was Inner ring Precision it would essentially extend the ring by a fair amount, and be to advantageous. Having it adjust by range gives a greater advantage to higher range weapons. Outer Ring would mean Gal scouts would never be affectedGÇª to much advantage again. MOAR Ladders SpadeGÇª Remember your Warbarge
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:56:00 - [57] - Quote Llast 326 wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: Lets say you only mark a target if your Precision beats their Profile. Would that solve that issue? Maybe. Which Precision value though? Base Precision? At the moment, everyone's Precision is pretty strong in shotgun/knife range. I was thinking Base. If it was Inner ring Precision it would essentially extend the ring by a fair amount, and be to advantageous. Having it adjust by range gives a greater advantage to higher range weapons. Outer Ring would mean Gal scouts would never be affectedGÇª to much advantage again. Snipers, complain no more! Announcing a fun, new and engaging function designed just for you! "Overwatch!" Do you love high ground? Yes you do. Who in your squad has better vantage of the battlefield than you, Mr Sniper? No one. From your lofty perch, can you spot those flanking bad guys before your squad does? Absolutely you can. Have you always wanted a way to alert your buddies to incoming danger? Of course you have. With "Overwatch!" all you have to do you now is aim and that valuable intel is relayed. Now get out there and have some fun! And you're welcome! * But you have to give up your Calmando. ** And you have to trade your damage amps for precision enhancers. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:58:00 - [58] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. No telling. But I definitely wouldn't want to see dampened units painted to TacNet every time someone sprays hipfire at them. If panic spray negates your damps, why not run HP in the first place? Like everyone else. This would be a major blow to stealth and backstab gameplay. If someone's shooting at you, odds are your stealth play has failed anyway. Say I spot you and flank you, taking care to run wide to avoid detection. Say I stalk you and wait until you're all alone and distracted. Still undetected. Say I sneak up right behind you, evading your LoS and everyone else's. Say I then shotgun you in the back, undetected up until the moment of attack. You're an HMG Heavy. What happens next? And how did I fail at stealth play? I would be the one flagged on your team's tacnet at that point. However, were I to catch you inbound and start pinging HMG bullets off your ass before the shotty, you would ping on mine. And the only shotgun you really have a chance to live through in your scenario comes in two varieties: Militia and catastrophic hit detection failure. Unless you're quad plated. With a logi leash. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 21:05:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Llast 326 wrote: I believe WP by type can be limited with a cap. Intel assists for spotting could be limited to prevent mass accrual in Blob scenarios. Assuming I am correct that they can be capped. No telling. But I definitely wouldn't want to see dampened units painted to TacNet every time someone sprays hipfire at them. If panic spray negates your damps, why not run HP in the first place? Like everyone else. This would be a major blow to stealth and backstab gameplay. If someone's shooting at you, odds are your stealth play has failed anyway. Say I spot you and flank you, taking care to run wide to avoid detection. Say I stalk you and wait until you're all alone and distracted. Still undetected. Say I sneak up right behind you, evading your LoS and everyone else's. Say I then shotgun you in the back, undetected up until the moment of attack. You're an HMG Heavy. What happens next? And how did I fail at stealth play? I would be the one flagged on your team's tacnet at that point. However, were I to catch you inbound and start pinging HMG bullets off your ass before the shotty, you would ping on mine. And the only shotgun you really have a chance to live through in your scenario comes in two varieties: Militia and catastrophic hit detection failure. Unless you're quad plated. With a logi leash. A shotgunner has to hit the average sentinel 3-4 times to kill it. The sentinel has plenty of time to pirouette and panic spray, and our would-be stealthy Scout is absolutely going to take damage. Under your system, he'd be painted to TacNet despite having taken every precaution and made every effort not to be. This is a fact and you know it. Why you're playing the fool is beyond me. If panic spray paints targets, you're going to see another drop in Scout performance. Might not be bad idea to buff Knives and Shotguns in advance. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.27 21:16:00 - [60] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: A shotgunner has to hit the average sentinel 3-4 times to kill it. The sentinel has plenty of time to pirouette and panic spray, and our would-be stealthy Scout is absolutely going to take damage. Under your system, he'd be painted to TacNet despite having taken every precaution and made every effort not to be. This is a fact and you know it. Why you're playing the fool is beyond me. If panic spray paints targets, you're going to see another drop in Scout performance. Might not be bad idea to buff Knives and Shotguns in advance. I'm not playing the fool. I don't brick out sentinels because I never have a logi. Come to think of it I don't even brick out sentinels even if I have a logi. Bluntly, you can stop accusing me of "Playing the fool" unless you want me to start calling you "Adipem Ad Hominem" whenever we talk. Just because YOU think things always work a certain way, doesn't mean they do, any more than I'm magically right about everything. Because I know when you say "average sentinel" you mean "Bricked Amsent" I know damn well how many shotgun hits each of the sentinels can take to the back with what fits. I've been ganked with them enough times that I usually get a good count. and bluntly if you have bullets bouncing off of you, you've been detected. When you stop having bullets bounce off you, you might no longer be detected. Assuming everything that hits you is automatically panic fire is ridiculous. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 21:34:00 - [61] - Quote So, you're doing it wrong. How is that my problem? Every time I shotgun a sentinel in the back, I fully expect to take damage from him. That's how common it is. The same goes for tanked Commandos and Assaults. You simply can't kill 'em fast enough. You suggested a tweak to my proposed idea. I'm telling you specifically how and why I think your tweak wouldn't work. Take my feedback or leave it. Don't get all butthurt and defensive, and don't waste my time with edge-case scenarios. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.27 21:40:00 - [62] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: So, you're doing it wrong. How is that my problem? Every time I shotgun a sentinel in the back, I fully expect to take damage from him. That's how common it is. The same goes for tanked Commandos and Assaults. You simply can't kill 'em fast enough. You suggested a tweak to my proposed idea. I'm telling you specifically how and why I think your tweak wouldn't work. Take my feedback or leave it. Don't get all butthurt and defensive, and don't waste my time with edge-case scenarios. Don't tell me I'm playing the fool because I don't do things your way. I don't really care what you think is "doing it wrong." The cal and minsent don't take shotgun shots well at all, and the galsent is hit or miss because of it's odd slot layout. The commando would have to be damn near bricked and assaults turning on you I'm going to chalk up to shoddy hit detection, something frequently reported in reference to the weapon line. And bluntly Firing your weapon should flash you on the tacnet IMHO, but that's not on my list of suggestions I'm actually going to make. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.27 23:31:00 - [63] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: So, you're doing it wrong. How is that my problem? Every time I shotgun a sentinel in the back, I fully expect to take damage from him. That's how common it is. The same goes for tanked Commandos and Assaults. You simply can't kill 'em fast enough. You suggested a tweak to my proposed idea. I'm telling you specifically how and why I think your tweak wouldn't work. Take my feedback or leave it. Don't get all butthurt and defensive, and don't waste my time with edge-case scenarios. Don't tell me I'm playing the fool because I don't do things your way. I don't really care what you think is "doing it wrong." The cal and minsent don't take shotgun shots well at all, and the galsent is hit or miss because of it's odd slot layout. The commando would have to be damn near bricked and assaults turning on you I'm going to chalk up to shoddy hit detection, something frequently reported in reference to the weapon line. And bluntly Firing your weapon should flash you on the tacnet IMHO, but that's not on my list of suggestions I'm actually going to make. This thread isn't about what you run or how you run it. This thread is about EWAR interplay. The fact of the matter is, the majority (if not vast majority) of Commandos, Assaults and Sentinels on the field spin-and-spray after being hit in the back with a shotgun. That's the point I was trying to make. It is especially true with Sentinels, and it isn't limited to any particular type or max-HP loadout. I've observed this thousands and thousands of times over. If for whatever reason you don't wish to take my word for it, you are more than welcome to grab a shotgun, hunt some fatties and see for yourself. It is the norm. Why it is that you're experience differs from the norm is interesting, but it is inconsequential as it relates to this discussion. 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. I'd assumed you were playing the fool, and that was wrong. I forgot about the above post. Apologies out of the way, I'd like to think that as a CPM you'd opine on from an informed position. I'm trying to help you get there. So quit being a combative arse and let me help you become less EWAR ignorant. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.27 23:49:00 - [64] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: I admit that I forgot about the above post. I'd assumed you were playing the fool and that was wrong of me. Apologies out of the way, I'd like to think that as a CPM Member you'd opine from an informed position. I'm trying to help you get there. So quit being a combative arse and let me help you become less EWAR ignorant. My official, relevant opine is that always wins/always loses binary equation needs to be killed with fire with something that is affected not only by fit but by action matters. Besides, I'm more interested in relevant factors that might affect interplay than much else. Crouching would reduce scannable surface area, and thus might give a slight reduction. firing a high-energy weapon (like a magnetically accelerated ball of ambiplasma) could be used as justification for being a bit more visible. Being directly flagged by crosshairs (I agree, not just because you happen to feather a gunsight across someone for a fraction of a second. DIRECTLY attacking someone (falls under crosshair lingering on the target for more than a stray bullet impact, waving the crosshairs across the target wildly shouldn't count) would speed it up. Light and visibility not so much, because the dropsuits auto-adjust to lighting, and the Mk.1 Eyeball should be relied on to differentiate a scout from a rock. Radar and such wouldn't be fooled by lighting conditions. Environmental conditions could affect it. the toxic mood could artificially lower the average profile of each suit due to the amount of caustic crap floating in the air. The act of firing a forge gun should probably just light up the firer on the radar, but that might also make it too easy to kill them quickly. things that interact and make the battlefield more dynamic that might help pokey with numbers/be reasonably useful for dynamic interplay are my interest though. The venom spitting arguments are what I do for fun. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.28 00:12:00 - [65] - Quote If you shoot, knife or punch someone in the back without killing them and then stay rooted in place so they can turn around 180 degrees and shoot you, you are the worst assassin ever and deserve not just to your position painted on tacnet but also deserve to have your innards painted across every other adjacent units' HUD. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2	Posted - 2015.08.28 04:31:00 - [66] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: If you shoot, knife or punch someone in the back without killing them and then stay rooted in place so they can turn around 180 degrees and shoot you, you are the worst assassin ever and deserve not just to have your position painted on tacnet but also deserve to have your innards painted across every other adjacent units' HUD. Really? Sigh. SG a heavy in the back one day, any good heavy will be turned around and hitting you before you can finish them. Knife will one hit kill most heavies if in a min scout with max skills but good luck getting in for the kill if they aren't hacking... Sure it can be done but not by the majority of players especially if they are with squad members. As for punching your right on that one... With the bs melee mods a commando can one hit kill pretty much any suit... Thanks CCP.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.28 05:33:00 - [67] - Quote I would prefer targets to be scanned only be targeting with ads rather that simply hitting them. It feels like it makes more sense to be deliberately scoping out targets. Just hitting them seems a little too much. I don't know, I just don't like the idea. On shotgunning people in the back: It is possible to kill sentinels (less tanked ones) with a shotgun without taking damage. However, it's not always easy. Getting shot by the target turning around is quite common. Being killed by them in a one on one, when you've opened with a shotgun blast to the back, can also happen. Consistently hitting moving targets at such short range can be difficult, hence the uncertainty in outcome. Without interference, a shotgun scout with the drop on a sentinel will generally win, but will often take some damage. Having said this, I believe weapon fire should significantly increase your profile. So firing a shotgun should flag your position to nearby targets anyway. It already does in a way, as people can hear it being fired. Now, melee and nova knives should be low profile. This would be great as it would give an extra insentive to use knives over a shotgun to be stealthy, which makes sense to me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.28 07:52:00 - [68] - Quote I am of the opinion that being able to set up a situation where there is no chance of survival/reprisal is bad. That kind of thing removes the value of skill/reflex entirely. Binary scenarios are not interesting. Sentinels always dying if you get behind them isn't interesting. Scouts being instantly dead if you happen to see them isn't interesting. (No I don't actually believe scouts should auto-die when a 3-year old farts too close) Scouts that can never be detected before they're in your back arc isn't interesting. Having one combo suit and active scanner that no one can beat ever isn't interesting. For every strength there needs to be a window to overcome that strength based upon skill. That's how I look at this mental exercise. If we can introduce something less binary and static, I'm all for jumping on it and squeezing it till the juice dries up. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.28 09:08:00 - [69] - Quote It isn't binary. Luck is involved to a degree, as is the case with most elements of most games, and I don't think it should be eliminated. But predominantly, stealth scout vs heavy / medium is a battle of skill and wit. A fact which people often miss. The essential thing to remember is that players can see scouts coming, and can react to attacks by scouts. Playing in a group, recognising where flank or rear attacks may occur and covering teamates, are all methods of fighting against scouts. This happens all the time. When a scout attacks, often there will be the opportunity to defend your teammate, if not yourself. Even if a scout succeeds in getting a kill players can often kill them in return and revive the victim. The interplay between scouts attempting to attack, kill and escape, whilst the other team watches for them and covers teammates, is a very interesting and compelling dynamic which this game does very well. Being able to hide from scans and kill targets extremely quickly does not spoil that interaction, it's crucial to it. As for pure skill, reacting fast and accurately enough to defend against scouts takes skill. Likewise, apart from the skill involved with closing in on enemies unseen, the act of killing a target without giving them the chance to defend and then escaping if needed also takes skill.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.28 09:40:00 - [70] - Quote Nicely put valroth but I think we're deeply off-topic. Shall we move back to the original topic? WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Vulpes Dolosus Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 3	Posted - 2015.08.28 10:27:00 - [71] - Quote Late comer so I'll just reply to the OP (in italics): 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. I think it's a good idea that was badly implemented. I like the idea of having a short, highly precise scan on most suits. It's balanced since it rarely reaches past 10m iirc, which in most situations like that your'e dead but you still have a slight chance. However, the falloff range needs to be much shorter and toward the end of the scan range. 20/75-80/100% of max range is more acceptable. The precision values are acceptable. 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. Per #3, I think mechanics where having a lower profile would benefit (i.e. chanced based scanning, scan duration, etc.) should be explored. While I like the idea of absolute values for scouts vs. logis (escalating to bringing out focused scanners and maxed damps, scouts having the advantage albeit gimping their fits), however virtually every other suit in the game can't compete with that arms war, so something should change. 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? See above; it's worth exploring. 4. Should secondary actions such as running, sprinting, or firing a weapon affect signature profile? Again, worth exploring, but if it's too technically time consuming, I'd just leave it out. Players of MAG will remember that there were three detection arrows on the HUD: a grey for sound (someone firing nearby), a yellow for incoming fire (someone shooting at you but missing), and a red for damage (someone shooting and hitting you). Something like this should be considered as well. 5. How do you feel about current Scout bonuses? Admittedly, as a Cal scout main, I'm a bit salty about losing the precision bonus. I also feel that bonus is wasted on the Amarr scout since it can't achieve decent results. The effective scan range and precision of a Cal scout is comparable to a logi now, and considering how much a Cal scout has to sacrifice to excel at passive scanning (sp and fitting wise), it makes it ill suited for the task, imo. Aside from the dampening, I see little purpose to using any scout for EWAR. All in all, most scouts have moved away from an active EWAR role to a pseudo-assault role now. 6. Do you feel that passive scans should be constant scans are they are now? Or activate periodically? Yes, provided they're restricted to the Minimap only. Active scans should be periodic and restricted to the HUD and overview map only. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.28 16:07:00 - [72] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Shall we move back to the original topic? I'll take a crack at it! Here's what Rattati left us with: http://puu.sh/jNGQz/7e770ebd24.png Here's what I'm thinking: http://i.imgur.com/iQ4l1rN.png Here's why: #1 - Shared Passive Scans are trouble. If you click through December's (rather heated) Dev EWAR discussion, you'll find that pretty much everyone -- even those diametrically opposed to one another -- agreed that Shared Passives should be disabled. There are lots and lots of good reasons why. Off the top of my head, here are a handful of EWAR improvements which could be accomplished if we got rid of shared passives: * Could alleviate the lopsided aspects of EWAR interplay brought about by 8x and 16x sharing * Could make EWAR interplay less off / on and a more an active game of hide-and-seek * Could make room in competitive play for recon scouts to participate in a balanced and meaningful manner * Could ensure that no matter what is tweaked down the road, passive permascan is not resurrected * Could make EWAR modules more meaningful to more unit types This is just one example, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that a Range Extender buff was on the table ... Range Extender Buff w/ Shared Passives: Blobbing > Scouting. Upgrade your blob by embedding in it an AM or CA Scout, who shares his now longer range, intense passives up to 16x. Detection conditions in competitive play are now very much analog and easy-to-anticipate. Be a heavily dampened GalScout and get in close undetected. Otherwise, assume detection anytime you're close to a blob. A good embedded Scout serves his squad best by surrounding himself with high-HP, hard-hitting squadmates, granting them his always-on ring of omniscience.. Beyond the occasional bullet dodging, player skill and judgment are of little-to-no consequence to the rather boring role of the embedded Scout. Range Extender Buff w/out Shared Passives: Scouting > Blobbing. A good EWAR AM/CA Scout orbits his squadmates, sniffs out potential infiltrators, and all-the-while relays intel back to his squad via active scanning or "scoping" incoming threats. He intercepts the threats he thinks he can handle; he actively "scouts" the rest. This Scout is served well by modules which augment his strong native scans; provided he plays smart, these potentially permit him better survivability than even HP modules. This Scout is a scout, and player skill and judgment play a significant part in how well he performs his role. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.28 23:36:00 - [73] - Quote Without reigniting a rehashing or sideways discourse considered "off-topic", at the end of the day there should be no accomodation for poor execution of gameplay inherently built into any game mechanics, whether they be binary or otherwise. If you stealth your way into execution kill positioning and don't headshot your target from behind, you should anticipate they may live and turn to fire on you. And there should be no protection from detection for you under those conditions, the stealth capital you had you've spent getting there and blown by not executing your kill. No, its not easy and under many circumstances its nigh impossible-and really imo should be. Thats a big part of what makes a successful combatzone assassination so rewarding and a testament of skill. Cloaked/damped zerg runs through combat areas shotgunning people in the back is drive-by shooting, and while yes a skilled play on timing and opportunity is not the same as an assassination play. Either way, if poorly executed, neither should be rewarded by EWAR mechanics that compensate for the failure. Ideal EWAR mechanics, in play example imo: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Z4IQi3I-M For the unfamiliar, this is the TeamSneaking gamemode from the online component for Metal Gear Solid 4, MGO2. Mechanically, this isn't much different than what we have in DUST. The match is lost by the sneakers by virtue more than anything else because none of them apparently equipped the "damps" skill, SOP Stealth while oone of the hunters was equipped with the top level scan skill ScanEX. He's the guy by the crate who seems to inject the ko'd opponent and make him and the rest of his team glow and easy prey for the hunting group. Bear in mind MGO had a broad range of skilling/equip possibilities and this match could have been very different for a million reasons. But as an example of an awesome EWAR interplay system it will suffice. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.30 12:13:00 - [74] - Quote Right now what are the biggest failure points of the scanning side, and what are the biggest failure points of the dampening side? WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.30 14:31:00 - [75] - 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? I think it's reasonably balanced to be honest. It's been a lot worse, and a lot of work went into getting to where we are. Biggest failure on the scanning side: Range amps are rather poor, particularly at low tiers. Though buffing them has the potential to make scanning OP, as it's effective with just the use of precision mods. Biggest failure on the dampening side: Having to fit three complex damps on an assault, or two on a Min/Am scout, just to hide from Gallente logi's long range, wide angle active scans, seems a bit much. Though, if the bonus to precision was swapped and assaults could hide with two damps, would there be enough value in a scout suit? Other than the cloak you could just use a dampened assault. More depth, such as walking/stopping to reduce profile, or weapons fire that increases profile would be great. Other changes have the potential to upset balance.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 400	Posted - 2015.08.30 20:51:00 - [76] - 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? Biggest failure on both sides: All or Nothing for passives...there is little point in fitting just one damp or just one precision enhancer...(let alone fitting even one range amp) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.08.30 21:19:00 - [77] - 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.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.31 02:48:00 - [78] - 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? Largely agree with Varoth's assessment above. On Range Amps, I'd add that the apparent quick fix (simply buff them) would create more problems than it'd solve. The reasons why this module was nerfed in the first place very much remain in effect today. In fact, more so, now that competitive squads can share passives among even more units than before. Biggest Failures on the Scanning Side? #1 - Hands down, the GalLogi's Active Scans (too potent and too easily spammed) #2 - Shared Passives (too potent, especially when shared 8x - 16x) #3 - Passive Scan Inner Ring Intensity (too potent at zero-to-minimal investment) Biggest Failures on the Dampening Side? The fact that in the vast majority of cases, the effect of Damps are completed negated by #1 through #3 above.
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.08.31 20:27:00 - [79] - Quote The way active scanners work needs some tweaking, but I don't see why it's a bad thing for a suit not designed to be sneaky (assaults) can be found by a suit designed to find sneaky suits (GalLogi). Why should assaults try to be sneaky at all? That isn't their job. That's the job of the scout suit, and they do that job quite well. Wanting assaults to be sneaky is like wanting scouts to be tanky. The problem with active scanners is they do not follow any sort of balanced rules. The longest range scans have the widest angle, which is a problem. My idea (and Adipem's) makes scanners actually active and implements some balanced rules for the variants to follow, but I see no reason for an assault to want to fit dampeners anymore than I would have a scout want to fit plates: you're going against the fundamental design of the suit. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.31 21:56:00 - [80] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: The way active scanners work needs some tweaking, but I don't see why it's a bad thing for a suit not designed to be sneaky (assaults) can be found by a suit designed to find sneaky suits (GalLogi). Why should assaults try to be sneaky at all? That isn't their job. That's the job of the scout suit, and they do that job quite well. Wanting assaults to be sneaky is like wanting scouts to be tanky. The problem with active scanners is they do not follow any sort of balanced rules. The longest range scans have the widest angle, which is a problem. My idea (and Adipem's) makes scanners actually active and implements some balanced rules for the variants to follow, but I see no reason for an assault to want to fit dampeners anymore than I would have a scout want to fit plates: you're going against the fundamental design of the suit. The point is it should be a fitting option. You can fit hp mods on a scout and be effective. Why can't you fit profile dampeners on an assault? You can, but is it worth it? Most people won't, but variety is what makes the game interesting. And the Gallente logi isn't designed to find sneaky suits, it's designed to find all suits. Sneaky suits are designed to hide from them. Basically, scouts are for hiding from scanners. Focussed scanners are for finding scouts. Profile dampeners are designed to hide you from scans. I'm just saying that perhaps Gallente logis should be adjusted so it's a little easier for mediums to make use of profile dampeners, if they wish, and give scouts a bit more room for fitting options other than profile dampeners. It would allow for more interesting EWAR dynamics and fitting options for all suits. Also, for people who don't play scout and complain about permascan, they could more easily fit dampeners, instead of feeling they have to go scout or be scanned. So for example, you could change the logi bonus from precision to cooldown reduction. Buff focussed scanner precision from 20 to 15db, but reduce it's range to 50m. Now you've got better distinction between long range, wide angle scans that can feasibly be hidden from (even by sentinels if they so wish), and short range, longer cooldown, but extremely powerful focussed scans. Just a thought. Improving active scanner mechanics is another issue that can go with this.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.31 22:05:00 - [81] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: ... but I see no reason for an assault to want to fit dampeners anymore than I would have a scout want to fit plates: you're going against the fundamental design of the suit. To be fair, I personally see no problem with there being alternative loadouts worth running beyond the "recommended". Options give players an opportunity to be creative when adapting to different environments and while adopting new tactics and strategies. Loadout variety -- in my opinion -- is a feature which sets Dust apart from other shooters. I believe there should be more than one "right way to do it", and I believe that "fundamental design" (if there is such a thing) should encourage players to thoroughly explore their options rather than only reward them when they color in between the lines. In the present environment, for instance, and assuming GalLogi scans were slightly less obnoxious ... Assume Profile Dampeners were tweaked such that they now afford their user a 30% reduction to Duration Scanned. All of sudden, these previously useless "scout modules" very well might be of tactical benefit to Assaults and worth the trading out of a plate or two. Spitballing, of course.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.31 22:26:00 - [82] - Quote Just to add: If you think of things from a new player's perspective I think we'll have a better idea of game design that makes sense. So newish player A goes into a match in his medium suit. Sees the "you have been scanned" message a lot, and notices the enemy always seems to know where he is. He's someone that likes to flank rather than go in guns blazing, so decides to try to do something about this. He finds profile dampeners and scout suits. These don't seem to work however. He then goes to the forums and discovers you need max dampening skills, a scout suit and 1/3 of your module slots filled with dampeners, or one guy on the enemy team is likely to paint your position on the map for most of the game. He will probably just respec to assault and hp mods. Newbie B however, skills up to level 3 active scanning, and happily scans most of the enemy team all day long, looking enviously at the rep logi racking up the warpoints. Rep logi gets stabbed. Player B thinks "oh a scout, I guess he will have snuck in under my radar", shoots scout with yes before he escapes, decides whether to revive the rep logi or not (so he can't steal all the end of match isk). Perhaps the situation could be improved a little.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.31 22:28:00 - [83] - Quote :: clapping ::
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.08.31 23:01:00 - [84] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: The point is it should be a fitting option. You can fit hp mods on a scout and be effective. Why can't you fit profile dampeners on an assault? You can, but is it worth it? Most people won't, but variety is what makes the game interesting. And the Gallente logi isn't designed to find sneaky suits, it's designed to find all suits. Sneaky suits are designed to hide from them. Basically, scouts are for hiding from scanners. Focussed scanners are for finding scouts. Profile dampeners are designed to hide you from scans. I'm just saying that perhaps Gallente logis should be adjusted so it's a little easier for mediums to make use of profile dampeners, if they wish, and give scouts a bit more room for fitting options other than profile dampeners. It would allow for more interesting EWAR dynamics and fitting options for all suits. Also, for people who don't play scout and complain about permascan, they could more easily fit dampeners, instead of feeling they have to go scout or be scanned. So for example, you could change the logi bonus from precision to cooldown reduction. Buff focussed scanner precision from 20 to 15db, but reduce it's range to 50m. Now you've got better distinction between long range, wide angle scans that can feasibly be hidden from (even by sentinels if they so wish), and short range, longer cooldown, but extremely powerful focussed scans. Just a thought. Improving active scanner mechanics is another issue that can go with this. You can, but there's my concern: assuming everything equal (max skills) A GalSout/CalScout with 1 complex damp can evade all scanners, period, save for proto duvolle scans with level 5 GalLogi. That's why we had such a huge problem with scouts back in 1.8; alongside the cloak, a scout could easily have assault levels of health while being invisible to all scans. Having 700hp and undetectable was considered OP. How is it any different if the suit is a damped assault as opposed to a tanked scout? It's about picking the right tool for the right job. You can be an assault with enough hp to survive a direct firefight, but you can easily be found. You can be a scout who can get under those scans, but you won't have the hp to go toe-to-toe with another suit. Wanting both is having your cake and eating it too; you must pick one or the other. Wanting an assault to be able to damp is wanting a hammer to be just as good at inserting screws as it is at putting in nails instead of having a tool specialized for inserting nails (the hammer) and a tool specialized at inserting screws (the screwdriver). But I do agree we need to tweak active scanner mechanics; the limitations they have are too easily bypassed, and the CreoDron Flux has both the biggest angle and the longest range, which is having your cake and eating it too. But as far as wanting Assaults to damp, it's like hammering in screws. Sure you can do it and it will work somewhat, but there are tools better suited to the task. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.31 23:09:00 - [85] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: The point is it should be a fitting option. You can fit hp mods on a scout and be effective. Why can't you fit profile dampeners on an assault? You can, but is it worth it? Most people won't, but variety is what makes the game interesting. And the Gallente logi isn't designed to find sneaky suits, it's designed to find all suits. Sneaky suits are designed to hide from them. Basically, scouts are for hiding from scanners. Focussed scanners are for finding scouts. Profile dampeners are designed to hide you from scans. I'm just saying that perhaps Gallente logis should be adjusted so it's a little easier for mediums to make use of profile dampeners, if they wish, and give scouts a bit more room for fitting options other than profile dampeners. It would allow for more interesting EWAR dynamics and fitting options for all suits. Also, for people who don't play scout and complain about permascan, they could more easily fit dampeners, instead of feeling they have to go scout or be scanned. So for example, you could change the logi bonus from precision to cooldown reduction. Buff focussed scanner precision from 20 to 15db, but reduce it's range to 50m. Now you've got better distinction between long range, wide angle scans that can feasibly be hidden from (even by sentinels if they so wish), and short range, longer cooldown, but extremely powerful focussed scans. Just a thought. Improving active scanner mechanics is another issue that can go with this. You can, but there's my concern: assuming everything equal (max skills) A GalSout/CalScout with 1 complex damp can evade all scanners, period, save for proto duvolle scans with level 5 GalLogi. That's why we had such a huge problem with scouts back in 1.8; alongside the cloak, a scout could easily have assault levels of health while being invisible to all scans. Having 700hp and undetectable was considered OP. How is it any different if the suit is a damped assault as opposed to a tanked scout? The underlined portion above is an oversimplification of a complex problem. Scouts and Cloak were nerfed in a half dozen (or better) different ways, Assaults were buffed, and passive scans were overhauled. That's what fixed the Scout problem. The GalLogi's Scans had very little if anything to do with the Scout problem or the fixing of the Scout problem.
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 2	Posted - 2015.08.31 23:36:00 - [86] - Quote Would be great if your profile changed depending on your actions IE: Examples, using a base scan profile of 30 Holding Still: -5% 30db>28db Crouching: -5% Holding still + crouching: -10% 30db>27db Moving slowly: 0% (No change) Running: +5% 30db>32db Sprinting: +10% 30db>33db Firing sidearm: +5% Firing Light weapon: +10% Firing heavy weapon: +25% 30db>38db Using a scanner: +15% 30db>35db (Scanning gives off a large signature, revealing the scanner) Scan precision should be -10% directly behind you, allowing players to sneak up on each other. Being behind a wall or terrain: (line of sight penalty): -5% Combining this with the system which has already been discussed, where instead of a simple PASS/FAIL, you can be partially detected, where partially scanned enemies give off smaller signatures, for a shorter time period Real CPM Platform
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.31 23:41:00 - [87] - Quote In response to Alena: Perhaps dampened assaults would be OP. Though I suspect not. Since 1.8, scouts have had nerfs to cloak duration, (cloak regen?), cloak dampening, bonuses and profile. The ability to scan whilst cloaked has been effectively removed. Scout passive scans have been significantly nerfed. Without precision mods the range has been effectively halfed. Direction indicators have also been removed. Significant decloak delay was introduced. Most suits can now easily scan scouts with their inner scan rings (albite at short range). Armour plates have had their strafe speed penalty significantly increased and their fitting cost increased, primarily to prevent scouts from effectively stacking them to massively buff their small base hp. Assaults have had their hp massively buffed. Their slot count and fitting increased. Their passive scanning buffed. Their profile buffed. Their speed was nerfed by 1%. The current balance position we have now between scouts and assaults is a result of all these changes. The fact that scouts are more easily scanned now is a relatively minor factor compared to all these other changes. I doubt that reducing the required number of dampeners for a suit to hide from a non-focussed scan by 1, would give us OP stealth suits like the 1.8 Gallente scout, considering all the other changes that have been made since then. Edit: Adipem put this better than me. See above.
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.08.31 23:47:00 - [88] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: The point is it should be a fitting option. You can fit hp mods on a scout and be effective. Why can't you fit profile dampeners on an assault? You can, but is it worth it? Most people won't, but variety is what makes the game interesting. And the Gallente logi isn't designed to find sneaky suits, it's designed to find all suits. Sneaky suits are designed to hide from them. Basically, scouts are for hiding from scanners. Focussed scanners are for finding scouts. Profile dampeners are designed to hide you from scans. I'm just saying that perhaps Gallente logis should be adjusted so it's a little easier for mediums to make use of profile dampeners, if they wish, and give scouts a bit more room for fitting options other than profile dampeners. It would allow for more interesting EWAR dynamics and fitting options for all suits. Also, for people who don't play scout and complain about permascan, they could more easily fit dampeners, instead of feeling they have to go scout or be scanned. So for example, you could change the logi bonus from precision to cooldown reduction. Buff focussed scanner precision from 20 to 15db, but reduce it's range to 50m. Now you've got better distinction between long range, wide angle scans that can feasibly be hidden from (even by sentinels if they so wish), and short range, longer cooldown, but extremely powerful focussed scans. Just a thought. Improving active scanner mechanics is another issue that can go with this. You can, but there's my concern: assuming everything equal (max skills) A GalSout/CalScout with 1 complex damp can evade all scanners, period, save for proto duvolle scans with level 5 GalLogi. That's why we had such a huge problem with scouts back in 1.8; alongside the cloak, a scout could easily have assault levels of health while being invisible to all scans. Having 700hp and undetectable was considered OP. How is it any different if the suit is a damped assault as opposed to a tanked scout? With respect, I believe the underlined portion above to be an oversimplification of a complex problem. Scouts and Cloak were nerfed in a half dozen (or better) different ways, their racial bonuses were revised, Assaults were buffed, and passive scans were overhauled. That's what fixed the Scout problem. The GalLogi's Scans had very little if anything to do with the Scout problem or the fixing of the Scout problem. If the GalLogi were removed from play today, I do not expect we'd see a repeat of Uprising 1.8. Rather, I'd expect we'd see better mix of MN/AM Scouts in play and an influx of dampened Assaults. Would dampened Assaults out-scout the Scout? It is possible, but I personally don't think so thanks to the Speed/HP Curve. That is something to think about. I think another part of the problem is the power curve between scanners and dampening. Ideally, dampening should beat scanning, but it should be neck-and-neck the entire way. So a level 3 GalScout with enhanced dampeners should beat a level 3 GalLogi with enhanced scanners... But just barely. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.09.01 00:04:00 - [89] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: The point is it should be a fitting option. You can fit hp mods on a scout and be effective. Why can't you fit profile dampeners on an assault? You can, but is it worth it? Most people won't, but variety is what makes the game interesting. And the Gallente logi isn't designed to find sneaky suits, it's designed to find all suits. Sneaky suits are designed to hide from them. Basically, scouts are for hiding from scanners. Focussed scanners are for finding scouts. Profile dampeners are designed to hide you from scans. I'm just saying that perhaps Gallente logis should be adjusted so it's a little easier for mediums to make use of profile dampeners, if they wish, and give scouts a bit more room for fitting options other than profile dampeners. It would allow for more interesting EWAR dynamics and fitting options for all suits. Also, for people who don't play scout and complain about permascan, they could more easily fit dampeners, instead of feeling they have to go scout or be scanned. So for example, you could change the logi bonus from precision to cooldown reduction. Buff focussed scanner precision from 20 to 15db, but reduce it's range to 50m. Now you've got better distinction between long range, wide angle scans that can feasibly be hidden from (even by sentinels if they so wish), and short range, longer cooldown, but extremely powerful focussed scans. Just a thought. Improving active scanner mechanics is another issue that can go with this. You can, but there's my concern: assuming everything equal (max skills) A GalSout/CalScout with 1 complex damp can evade all scanners, period, save for proto duvolle scans with level 5 GalLogi. That's why we had such a huge problem with scouts back in 1.8; alongside the cloak, a scout could easily have assault levels of health while being invisible to all scans. Having 700hp and undetectable was considered OP. How is it any different if the suit is a damped assault as opposed to a tanked scout? With respect, I believe the underlined portion above to be an oversimplification of a complex problem. Scouts and Cloak were nerfed in a half dozen (or better) different ways, their racial bonuses were revised, Assaults were buffed, and passive scans were overhauled. That's what fixed the Scout problem. The GalLogi's Scans had very little if anything to do with the Scout problem or the fixing of the Scout problem. If the GalLogi were removed from play today, I do not expect we'd see a repeat of Uprising 1.8. Rather, I'd expect we'd see better mix of MN/AM Scouts in play and an influx of dampened Assaults. Would dampened Assaults out-scout the Scout? It is possible, but I personally don't think so thanks to the Speed/HP Curve. That is something to think about. I think another part of the problem is the power curve between scanners and dampening. Ideally, dampening should beat scanning, but it should be neck-and-neck the entire way. So a level 3 GalScout with enhanced dampeners should beat a level 3 GalLogi with enhanced scanners... But just barely. With scouts and passive scans as they are today and active scan results being shared 16 ways, I do not see the need for active scans and scout scan profiles to escalate neck-and-neck. Should they, there will remain no point to running damps on Assaults. I believe it's been said before, "Active Scans are not the counter to Scouts, Scouts are the counter to Active Scans."
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.09.01 00:06:00 - [90] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: That is something to think about. I think another part of the problem is the power curve between scanners and dampening. Ideally, dampening should beat scanning, but it should be neck-and-neck the entire way. So a level 3 GalScout with enhanced dampeners should beat a level 3 GalLogi with enhanced scanners... But just barely. 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.

Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.09.01 00:10:00 - [91] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: That is something to think about. I think another part of the problem is the power curve between scanners and dampening. Ideally, dampening should beat scanning, but it should be neck-and-neck the entire way. So a level 3 GalScout with enhanced dampeners should beat a level 3 GalLogi with enhanced scanners... But just barely. 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. That is a good point. I'll have to ponder on it for a bit. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.09.01 00:13:00 - [92] - Quote I put in a little edit, which is this: I don't know about scanning. There's no reason to buff it though. At least I know that much.
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.01 20:46:00 - [93] - 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? Probably base profile values. Closer values = more overlap = more interplay. Lack of interplay seeming to be the root underlying issue. PS- Add to the above also a lack of any new modules or equipment using the existing systems and graphics models to create any in-game capability approaching what some players have asked for. Instead its just merry-go-round, round and round we go... Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.11 23:41:00 - [94] - Quote Inbound Link (w/background): https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2952009#post2952009 Concept: Adding Scan Profile penalty to Shield Extenders.
Yaerus Steel Wolf Pack Special Forces Rise Of Legion. 48	Posted - 2015.09.12 01:49:00 - [95] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 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. @Nothi - So Before I begin a more detailed explanation I'm going to go through this thread and read everything to assimilate the ideas being passed around. I will have to read for a bit before I continue, but yeah good idea to move the discussion.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 07:51:00 - [96] - Quote 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? WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Robert Conway Concordiat Mercenaries 671	Posted - 2015.09.12 08:01:00 - [97] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Yassavi Approved. -Aero Yassavi
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 08:11:00 - [98] - Quote Robert Conway wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Robert Conway Concordiat Mercenaries 671	Posted - 2015.09.12 08:35:00 - [99] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Robert Conway wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well Forced Death was the OP. But Alena Ventrallis was talking about the 150 hp/ second from a rep tool only canceled out 150 damage from 450 dps weapon. In essence still doing 300 damage. Yassavi Approved. -Aero Yassavi
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 09:44:00 - [100] - Quote You can still see what he said in quotes. Redaction doesn't remove/change those. Also off-topic and not relevant to ewar discussion. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Robert Conway Concordiat Mercenaries 672	Posted - 2015.09.12 10:34:00 - [101] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: You can still see what he said in quotes. Redaction doesn't remove/change those. Also off-topic and not relevant to ewar discussion. That's perfectly fine with me. A bump to keep it on the top never hurt anything. And bringing this train full circle to your question I quoted about the math. I believe strait number buffs instead of percentage buffs might be a better avenue. See? Things have a way of working out. Resaoning is people say the modules don't do enough. With a flat number, we can adjust that number rather than a varying percentage that will affect each player differently. The change can be more easily gauged by the community for any extra need in buff. My personal opinion. Don't jump down my throat if I am wrong please. Yassavi Approved. -Aero Yassavi
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 11:50:00 - [102] - Quote It's not a question of wrong or right. Even a sht 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?" WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.09.12 12:29:00 - [103] - Quote 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. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Robert Conway Concordiat Mercenaries 672	Posted - 2015.09.12 12:30:00 - [104] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: It's not a question of wrong or right. Even a sht 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?" Yes. I agree with everything in this quote. Well put. I was hoping I wasn't the only one left who thought like that. Now I know I'm not. Yassavi Approved. -Aero Yassavi
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 13:59:00 - [105] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:17:00 - [106] - Quote 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. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:23:00 - [107] - Quote Interesting idea. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:29:00 - [108] - Quote Breakin wrote: Alena wrote: 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. The "CalScout of Old" had a bonus to both precision and range. It was way too good at the time, but much has changed with Falloff. If we wired today's CalScout with its old bonuses, for example, its scans would be a far less potent than its predecessor's as it would not scan at a constant precision value from 0m out to its maximum, and it's maximum range would be substantially less than before. It would no doubt make for a better recon unit than it is at present, but it would not be sufficiently good to dethrone the GalLogi. As for a flat bonus to range extenders, I suspect that an extension of today's inner ring would correspond to an immediate decrease in Nova Knife efficiency. I don't have access to the efficiency numbers, but I suspect that this would be bad for balance. As many have previously suggested, if range extenders only affected middle and outer rings, buffing them would likely be fine. Alternatively, if inner rings were converted to a fixed value, such that range extenders didn't extend them, then buffing range extenders would likely be fine.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:32:00 - [109] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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 its permascanned.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:42:00 - [110] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.12 15:38:00 - [111] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.12 15:42:00 - [112] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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) WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.12 15:52:00 - [113] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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) Increasing range could help (and very well might solve the AM Scout problem) but you'd have to be careful not to go too far. Rattati wasn't completely wrong when he kneecapped Scout passives. Long range, high intensity passive scans are as bad for EWAR interplay as current GalLogi active scans.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.12 16:03:00 - [114] - Quote I'd personally like to see Rattati choose a new path for the AM Scout and find a way to make GalLogi actives less overpowered and oppressive ... my two cents: To Fix GA Logi Snapshot Scanners ---> Beam Scanners (Google Doc) (or) Replace GalLogi precision bonus with a warpoint bonus for recon assists (team wide). To Fix AM Scout Replace precision bonus with flat efficacy bonus to biotics (or) Drop the precision bonus and add a low slot (or) Drop the precision bonus and add a bonus to ScP damage & headshot multiplier In a nutshell, Less Scans > More Scans. * This thinking is aimed at current mechanics and very well may change as more information is made available on Rattati's proposed EWAR overhaul.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.09.12 16:06:00 - [115] - Quote Its those shared passive scans I hate so much on top of the adjustable and unbeatable inner ring. Using a full range of the radar may mean something on the order of 15 to 20 m inner ring with 10 dB shared among an entire team in PC. shudders Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.09.12 18:36:00 - [116] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. This. Only switch the range and precision bonuses. Sorry that wasn't clear. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.13 01:06:00 - [117] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. Leaning toward "bad recon units still bad" but I'd really have to get my hands on these to say definitively. Apologies, gents. Just doublechecked the spreadsheet above and found lots of superfluous garbage I thought I'd deleted. Cleaned it up.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 6	Posted - 2015.09.13 01:35:00 - [118] - 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
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 02:45:00 - [119] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. YOU'VE BEEN SCANNED!! I'm gonna go read too... Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 06:00:00 - [120] - Quote Geez. Not a whole lot to work with here still. Retread hyperbole about Gallogi and permascan, personal issues about EWAR being binary. And fixes to return scouts to their undetectable, high hp, all-seeing peak. We need something else, people. The merry go round has to stop. What about adding a new EWAR equipment class that's designed to introduce a little variation to the "binary" aspect of things since, reportedly, theres no real way code-wise to refine the scan/damp system? I'm meaning good old basic Chaff style grenades which would wipe the scan-ability of an area as well as a good old basic EMF emmitting piece of equipment that does the same? The nades programming-wise would clear a units scan chevron and apply a flat numerical profile reduction to a given area. Ex- you've been scanned! Pop chaff nade to wipe chevron and create a 15m area that wouldn't be scannable for say, 10 seconds. Keep popping those nades as you move to create a "corridor of shadow" allowing some help in escaping/rerouting from a scan protected area. OR use in conjunction with teammates to route a pathway for scanner neutralization. The EMF equipment would function similarly, emmitting a bubble field that also reduces profile below scan precisions for all units within, uses the same up time/cooldown time of equivalent scanners. Portable while in use and with a bonus application from a specific suit (looking at you, w/e dog suit of the month scout you are) competitive with the Gallogi+scanner. And anythi g under the bubble gets cloaked (scan-wise, not visually). Now heavies and assaults glean some tangible EWAR coverage from an embedded EWAR unit. Use the same graphics as existing flux nades, scanners and hive bubbles to expedite implementation. Quit arguing about the same **** over and over. Yes, its binary. You're scanned, or you're not. Flop, turn, river- you have the nuts in your hand or you don't. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR

el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 06:03:00 - [121] - Quote As an expansion on that EMF emitter, lets have one for Dropships too to temporarily cloak against swarmlock. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.13 08:11:00 - [122] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Retread hyperbole about Gallogi and permascan, personal issues about EWAR being binary. And fixes to return scouts to their undetectable, high hp, all-seeing peak. We need something else, people. The merry go round has to stop. News Bulletin: 1. GalLogi scans really are a problem. It isn't hyperbole. Permascan is real, and players are tired of it. 2. The Scouts of your nightmares went extinct 9 months ago. By all accounts, today's Scout is UP. 3. No one here (especially me) wants a repeat scoutocolypse or a useless GalLogi. Saying it ain't so won't change the facts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 6	Posted - 2015.09.13 10:03:00 - [123] - 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
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.13 15:37:00 - [124] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Thoughts? Very clever. +1
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 19:36:00 - [125] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Retread hyperbole about Gallogi and permascan, personal issues about EWAR being binary. And fixes to return scouts to their undetectable, high hp, all-seeing peak. We need something else, people. The merry go round has to stop. News Bulletin: 1. GalLogi scans really are a problem. It isn't hyperbole. Permascan is real, and players are tired of it. 2. The OP Scouts of your nightmares went extinct 9 months ago. By all accounts, today's Scout is UP. 3. No one here (especially me) wants a repeat scoutocolypse or a useless GalLogi. Saying it ain't so won't change the facts. Its not as big a problem as the detrimental effects of having a base stat/core mechanic rewrite every 90 days OR peoples' unwillingness to adapt farther than the simplest of FPS playstyle. Scouts were never my nightmare. Go reread our convos, I HTFU, GG and got busy. Only issue I ever had with the new scouts was 2 equipments and that was the only fix I ever asked for until somebody instigated other behaviour from me. Nobody here would claim publicly that they were regardless. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 19:44:00 - [126] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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? I like the addition of an Active Dampener, it's new content which in turn creates new gameplay potential. I think if the Active Scanner is to become an "only works while active" then the Damp should be the same. I also think considering the speed that conflicts occur at that if theres to be a high-low precision drop over time element 3 seconds from limit to limit is pretty long. 1.75-2.25 would probably work much better, especially if "painting" during cooldown is disappearing. More than anything the benefit of this idea is it's new content . Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 6	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:02:00 - [127] - 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
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:21:00 - [128] - Quote A lot of these things aren't actually broken tho, some people just don't like or can't handle the results. So instead of creating constant instability as to what and how the core works create game elements which allow creation of gameplay closer to what some people are looking for. There will never be a sandbox if its constantly having the sand swapped for mud or rocks or woodchips or some combo of them. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:27:00 - [129] - Quote The Quote: ...main roof caving in... in this game wouldn't be scanners/damps anyway, it'd be w/e the problem is that causes all those often -cited percormance issues. Lag,freezes, matches disappearing etc. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:47:00 - [130] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Cloaks at least to some extent are active dampeners. Bsc - 0% Adv - 5% Pro - 10% Cloak's active damp effect was much higher on release (at 25%), but new values were introduced to prevent undampened, uparmored Scouts from beating scans. Prior to the change, Scouts were able to achieve Assault-like hitpoint levels all the while ducking scans so long as their cloaks were active. The problem was exacerbated by substantially higher cloak reserves and instantaneous decloak mechanics (i.e. fire-from-cloak), which permitted Scouts the ability to decloak, engage and recloak in rapid succession. In addition to reduction of active damp effect and cloak reserves (HF Alpha?), cloak deactivation was later extended from instantaneous to ~1 second to remedy fire-from-cloak. It was later extended again to the current, clunky ~3 seconds. In a separate but related nerf, the cloak blind mechanic was also introduced, which reduces a cloaked unit's scan range by 85%. Even after all these cloak nerfs (and an Assault buff), Scouts remained OP. High hitpoint "Assault Lite" remained the go-to slayer suits from March of 2014 (Uprising 1.8) until December of 2014 (introduction of Falloff). Scout usage rates have since plummeted and remain in decline.

Aeon Amadi 12	Posted - 2015.09.13 21:16:00 - [131] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Cloaks at least to some extent are active dampeners. Bsc - 0% Adv - 5% Pro - 10% Cloak's active damp effect was much higher on release (at 25%), but new values were introduced to prevent undampened, uparmored Scouts from beating scans. Prior to the change, Scouts were able to achieve Assault-like hitpoint levels all the while ducking scans so long as their cloaks were active. The problem was exacerbated by substantially higher cloak reserves and instantaneous decloak mechanics (i.e. fire-from-cloak), which permitted Scouts the ability to decloak, engage and recloak in rapid succession. In addition to reduction of active damp effect and cloak reserves (HF Alpha?), cloak deactivation was later extended from instantaneous to ~1 second to remedy fire-from-cloak. It was later extended again to the current, clunky ~3 seconds. In a separate but related nerf, the cloak blind mechanic was also introduced, which reduces a cloaked unit's scan range by 85%. Even after all these cloak nerfs (and an Assault buff), Scouts remained OP. High hitpoint "Assault Lite" remained the go-to slayer suits from March of 2014 (Uprising 1.8) until December of 2014 (introduction of Falloff). Scout usage rates have since plummeted and remain in decline. Hrmm. http://dust.thang.dk/market_historycategory.php According to that, Scouts were the second most popular suit up until July of this year before Logistics took that luxury, presumably due to the speed changes on June 30th. Just as well, Commandos saw an increase in usage from the same patch as they had a slot-count rebalance that accompanied the speed changes. Correlation does not equate to causation, but perhaps the decline - at least recently - is due to our limited player base using other suits as they increase in viability. Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 21:22:00 - [132] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Cloaks at least to some extent are active dampeners. Bsc - 0% Adv - 5% Pro - 10% Cloak's active damp effect was much higher on release (at 25%), but new values were introduced to prevent undampened, uparmored Scouts from beating scans. Prior to the change, Scouts were able to achieve Assault-like hitpoint levels all the while ducking scans so long as their cloaks were active. The problem was exacerbated by substantially higher cloak reserves and instantaneous decloak mechanics (i.e. fire-from-cloak), which permitted Scouts the ability to decloak, engage and recloak in rapid succession. In addition to reduction of active damp effect and cloak reserves (HF Alpha?), cloak deactivation was later extended from instantaneous to ~1 second to remedy fire-from-cloak. It was later extended again to the current, clunky ~3 seconds. In a separate but related nerf, the cloak blind mechanic was also introduced, which reduces a cloaked unit's scan range by 85%. Even after all these cloak nerfs (and an Assault buff), Scouts remained OP. High hitpoint "Assault Lite" remained the go-to slayer suits from March of 2014 (Uprising 1.8) until December of 2014 (introduction of Falloff). Scout usage rates have since plummeted and remain in decline. Hrmm. http://dust.thang.dk/market_historycategory.php According to that, Scouts were the second most popular suit up until July of this year before Logistics took that luxury, presumably due to the speed changes on June 30th. Just as well, Commandos saw an increase in usage from the same patch as they had a slot-count rebalance that accompanied the speed changes. Correlation does not equate to causation, but perhaps the decline - at least recently - is due to our limited player base using other suits as they increase in viability. As well as a decline in usage from a decline in actual playerbase across those periods. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Leither Yiltron 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.09.13 23:02:00 - [133] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Cloaks at least to some extent are active dampeners. Bsc - 0% Adv - 5% Pro - 10% Cloak's active damp effect was much higher on release (at 25%), but new values were introduced to prevent undampened, uparmored Scouts from beating scans. Prior to the change, Scouts were able to achieve Assault-like hitpoint levels all the while ducking scans so long as their cloaks were active. The problem was exacerbated by substantially higher cloak reserves and instantaneous decloak mechanics (i.e. fire-from-cloak), which permitted Scouts the ability to decloak, engage and recloak in rapid succession. In addition to reduction of active damp effect and cloak reserves (HF Alpha?), cloak deactivation was later extended from instantaneous to ~1 second to remedy fire-from-cloak. It was later extended again to the current, clunky ~3 seconds. In a separate but related nerf, the cloak blind mechanic was also introduced, which reduces a cloaked unit's scan range by 85%. Even after all these cloak nerfs (and an Assault buff), Scouts remained OP. High hitpoint "Assault Lite" remained the go-to slayer suits from March of 2014 (Uprising 1.8) until December of 2014 (introduction of Falloff). Scout usage rates have since plummeted and remain in decline. Hrmm. http://dust.thang.dk/market_historycategory.php According to that, Scouts were the second most popular suit up until July of this year before Logistics took that luxury, presumably due to the speed changes on June 30th. Just as well, Commandos saw an increase in usage from the same patch as they had a slot-count rebalance that accompanied the speed changes. Correlation does not equate to causation, but perhaps the decline - at least recently - is due to our limited player base using other suits as they increase in viability. As well as a decline in usage from a decline in actual playerbase across those periods. You could reasonably use the eve-offline charts' data to get a statistic that is (daily purchase numbers)/(daily average) or even .../(3-day daily rolling average). Not perfect, but maybe more reasonable. Have a pony
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.14 00:46:00 - [134] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Cloaks at least to some extent are active dampeners. Bsc - 0% Adv - 5% Pro - 10% Cloak's active damp effect was much higher on release (at 25%), but new values were introduced to prevent undampened, uparmored Scouts from beating scans. Prior to the change, Scouts were able to achieve Assault-like hitpoint levels all the while ducking scans so long as their cloaks were active. The problem was exacerbated by substantially higher cloak reserves and instantaneous decloak mechanics (i.e. fire-from-cloak), which permitted Scouts the ability to decloak, engage and recloak in rapid succession. In addition to reduction of active damp effect and cloak reserves (HF Alpha?), cloak deactivation was later extended from instantaneous to ~1 second to remedy fire-from-cloak. It was later extended again to the current, clunky ~3 seconds. In a separate but related nerf, the cloak blind mechanic was also introduced, which reduces a cloaked unit's scan range by 85%. Even after all these cloak nerfs (and an Assault buff), Scouts remained OP. High hitpoint "Assault Lite" remained the go-to slayer suits from March of 2014 (Uprising 1.8) until December of 2014 (introduction of Falloff). Scout usage rates have since plummeted and remain in decline. Hrmm. http://dust.thang.dk/market_historycategory.php According to that, Scouts were the second most popular suit up until July of this year before Logistics took that luxury, presumably due to the speed changes on June 30th. Just as well, Commandos saw an increase in usage from the same patch as they had a slot-count rebalance that accompanied the speed changes. Correlation does not equate to causation, but perhaps the decline - at least recently - is due to our limited player base using other suits as they increase in viability. There's no other way to describe scout usage trends. Within a month or two of Falloff, Scout usage dropped from outselling all else by 2:1 to underselling Assaults by the same massive margin. The nerf worked. The plummet in usage was immediate and sustained. To date, Scout usage has continued to decline. Current trends held constant, Commandos will be outselling Scouts in a matter of months. Whether that's good or bad is beside the point. The point is that Scouts aren't the OP problem they used to be and haven't been for nearly a year.
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.14 00:57:00 - [135] - Quote Leither Yiltron wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Cloaks at least to some extent are active dampeners. Bsc - 0% Adv - 5% Pro - 10% Cloak's active damp effect was much higher on release (at 25%), but new values were introduced to prevent undampened, uparmored Scouts from beating scans. Prior to the change, Scouts were able to achieve Assault-like hitpoint levels all the while ducking scans so long as their cloaks were active. The problem was exacerbated by substantially higher cloak reserves and instantaneous decloak mechanics (i.e. fire-from-cloak), which permitted Scouts the ability to decloak, engage and recloak in rapid succession. In addition to reduction of active damp effect and cloak reserves (HF Alpha?), cloak deactivation was later extended from instantaneous to ~1 second to remedy fire-from-cloak. It was later extended again to the current, clunky ~3 seconds. In a separate but related nerf, the cloak blind mechanic was also introduced, which reduces a cloaked unit's scan range by 85%. Even after all these cloak nerfs (and an Assault buff), Scouts remained OP. High hitpoint "Assault Lite" remained the go-to slayer suits from March of 2014 (Uprising 1.8) until December of 2014 (introduction of Falloff). Scout usage rates have since plummeted and remain in decline. Hrmm. http://dust.thang.dk/market_historycategory.php According to that, Scouts were the second most popular suit up until July of this year before Logistics took that luxury, presumably due to the speed changes on June 30th. Just as well, Commandos saw an increase in usage from the same patch as they had a slot-count rebalance that accompanied the speed changes. Correlation does not equate to causation, but perhaps the decline - at least recently - is due to our limited player base using other suits as they increase in viability. As well as a decline in usage from a decline in actual playerbase across those periods. You could reasonably use the eve-offline charts' data to get a statistic that is (daily purchase numbers)/(daily average) or even .../(3-day daily rolling average). Not perfect, but maybe more reasonable. I think there'd need to be mac ID tracking to determine actual usage, 100 alts and their purchasing trends doesn't help. I'm coming from the perspective that physically there used to be more players-in chats, in lobbies, in game. New/different ID behaviours are meaningless when the physical population is so obviously atrophying. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.14 02:22:00 - [136] - Quote Leither Yiltron wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: As well as a decline in usage from a decline in actual playerbase across those periods. You could reasonably use the eve-offline charts' data to get a statistic that is (daily purchase numbers)/(daily average) or even .../(3-day daily rolling average). Not perfect, but maybe more reasonable. Scout usage rates have declined by over 400% since December of last year. From over 80k to roughly 20k. We've no doubt lost players over the past 9 months, but you can't blame a drop of that magnitude on declining headcounts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 11	Posted - 2015.09.14 02:57:00 - [137] - Quote 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. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.14 03:00:00 - [138] - 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. Google Doc ^ That's all we've got. If you need fresh data, you guys are closer to the source than anyone here. If you wanted to, you could just ask Rattati. "Hey boss, Scout usage is down. Are they underperforming or are they just whiny bastards? Is there any room for us to maybe nerf 'em again? Maybe in the EWAR department, again? Or should we actually pay mind to their feedback?"
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 6	Posted - 2015.09.14 03:13:00 - [139] - 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
Leither Yiltron 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.09.14 03:23:00 - [140] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: I think there'd need to be mac ID tracking to determine actual usage, 100 alts and their purchasing trends doesn't help. When I say "daily average", I mean the daily average simultaneous player count. You won't be getting a precise tracking of per capita purchases, but presumably the unique daily player count is strongly associated with the average simultaneous player count. It's ad-hoc, but more useful than raw market numbers. Have a pony

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.14 04:20:00 - [141] - Quote Wife's in labor :-) Back later !
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.14 04:35:00 - [142] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Wife's in labor :-) Back later ! Good Luck!! Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.15 02:24:00 - [143] - Quote 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
XxBlazikenxX Ancient Exiles. 2	Posted - 2015.09.15 02:47:00 - [144] - 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 Maybe he'll be the Sentinel in the family! AVERT YOUR EYES!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 6	Posted - 2015.09.15 05:03:00 - [145] - 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
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.17 00:16:00 - [146] - 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 Congratulations! Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.17 01:52:00 - [147] - Quote Thx, guys! Meet James Nothi. Chubby or not, he will learn the knives :P


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one 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.