Teamshare and squadshare - not read what you guys have proposed I don't think. Anything shared across a team does seem a bit much though. Short of links hives etc.

I get the feeling we are on the road to abilene on the scout rework (look up road to abilene on youtube for a giggle). Reworking or eliminating an entire classes bonus in order to make 1 less attractive then the rest doesn't seem like the best path to success. I don't want the gal scout to end up to be the next cal logi. On the other hand, i want relevant bonuses again.

Wish i had more to offer.

I appreciate it.

Is there a simpler option?

Presently, all Active Scanners but one share team-wide. The idea is to set all Active Scanners to squad share unless wielded by a Scout. Because "Scout". In short, it'd be an additional class equipment bonus to accompany cloak fitting. Would give us a role-appropriate non-combat battlefield function and would simultaneously reign in permascan.

Good points. It does see strange to reshuffle an entire class because of one offender, and even if we get a solid proposal it'd be a tough sell with so many variables.

Is there a simpler option?

... but I think it correct to balance against the end-game.

There are a few ...

* Swap Logi and Assault speeds
* Reign in high-HP / high- mobility via mass:movement model
* Tune shimmer to improve Scout survivability

All of these would improve Scout Efficiency, and all have already been pitched.
None of these would address GalScout PC superiority.

Is the Gal Scout superiority the problem or is it a symptom?

Is the Gal Scout superiority the problem or is it a symptom?

A scanned Scout is a dead Scout, and there will always be low-dB baseline scans. The Scout which beats the baseline at the lowest level of investment is the optimal choice.

So it's the binary nature - the next question is, is an unscanned scout OP?

Because as Ghost has said, if you bring out the next level of scanner to scan down the next level of dampener, and wash rinse repeat until someone wins, that suggests to me that not detecting scouts is a sure way to lose a battle.

Now is that coz of Alpha damage, or hack speeds, or what?

Odds are that Scout has to get within a few meters of you to threaten you. When he does, he'll be on your TacNet, and the TacNet of your entire squad.

If Scouts were OP, there performance wouldn't be plummeting. Plummeting performance is the basis of this discussion.

But why are they plummeting? Scannerinas? Why is it important to scan down scouts in PC? Why would an FC go to the lengths of putting out the next lowest scan precision every time a scout or two (or more) refits to get under the previous scan?

I'm afraid I felt the need to share this link: http://i.imgur.com/OYVttL8.jpg

No, don't go to the site it suggests. Really, don't.

@ Version 4

I understand that we've crossed racial EQ lines, but it makes more sense for the CalScout to wield the scanner than the GalScout. Very much open to alternative ideas and input.

So it's the binary nature - the next question is, is an unscanned scout OP?

Because as Ghost has said, if you bring out the next level of scanner to scan down the next level of dampener, and wash rinse repeat until someone wins, that suggests to me that not detecting scouts is a sure way to lose a battle.

Now is that coz of Alpha damage, or hack speeds, or what?

[edit]

If gal scout beats everything with the right fit, why don't all squads consist of gal scouts?

If pre-echo HMG was OP, why didn't all squads run HMG?

Spitballing edit

Unscanned, aka Max Dampened Scouts, make significant HP and utilitarian sacrifices to become unscanned, so I don't think they are OP, particularly in the current meta.

What sets Gal Scouts apart is their ability to reach that state with less of a sacrifice, and more room for HP and other utilitarian mods at the same time.

Currently, if I have to Max Dampen my Minja, I need to fill all Lows with CDs, which leaves no room for CBs, KinCats, or HP. Plus because CA, MN, and AM need to have a Pro Cloak active to beat the Max Scans, they are in that state blind outside 5 m and have to deal with the fitting cost and clunkiness of the Cloak as well.

The Gal Scout, if it chooses, can beat scans sans Cloak, and have an extra EQ slot and fitting space as well.

It just has a lot more room for variation when dampened than the other 3.

Lastly, in compared to my Minja, which I run standard, a Std Gal Scout has the slots to beat Max Scans, while I would have to pull out a Proto suit to do the same with Minmatar.

In the current state, it is the probably the most viable/versatile of a possibly UP class.

And yet if you take away the profile bonus of the gal scout it is worse than the already worst amarr scout. so 1 15% std dampener is the difference in making the #1 scout the number #4 scout.

I like the efficiency bonus to profile dampners to the scout role. Keep the Min scout bonuses. Not sure about Amarr, but here are my ideas for cal and gal.

Give cal scout a reduction on cloak blind say 10% per level. Should be easy to do code wise and be useful yet not OP given the delay to swap out of cloak. Stays with better scans roll without giving OP scans.

Give gal scout a reduction to cloak shimmer. Probably harder to implement but sticks with role of infiltrator.

Thoughts?

I like the efficiency bonus to profile dampners to the scout role. Keep the Min scout bonuses. Not sure about Amarr, but here are my ideas for cal and gal.

Give cal scout a reduction on cloak blind say 10% per level. Should be easy to do code wise and be useful yet not OP given the delay to swap out of cloak. Stays with better scans roll without giving OP scans.

Give gal scout a reduction to cloak shimmer. Probably harder to implement but sticks with role of infiltrator.

Thoughts?

Taking a blindfold off a blind person doesn't make them any less blind.

Would love to see shimmer reduction in any form.

Having run lots and lots of 2CB MinScout, I'd be concerned about becoming OP if I could duck permascan with only one damp. Still thinking about it though :-)

I just dont get why the alpha transparency value can not just be changed. I don't know how they coded it but I just can not believe the api/object code does not support alpha transparancey value.