....lol
Ruined in your eyes maybe.
It wasn't perfect, but it was just another perspective on how EWAR should be.

But hey! Don't let me stop you from believing that in this rather subjective part of the design process you are the only one with the right answer :P

@ Cat - Fair enough. Having had an opportunity to see Falloff and Scan changes in action over the past few months, is there anything about the current EWAR model you'd see changed?

Eh, I'm really not sure. I guess we can't really change anything to be the way I want until Rattati can remove squad passive scans. I want a hunter vs hunted dynamic. Problem is, hunters give their info to the entire squad, forcing us in the balance to make the hunted nearly impossible to detect. That means that the hunter becomes useless, it's only there to keep the hunted "honest", and I'm sure you can see that this creates a cycle.

Passive Scan sharing with Squad removal is impossible without extensive refactoring work of the whole scan system ...

Love the idea of a better hunter v hunted dynamic. Also love the idea of disabling shared passives. I don't believe that Rattati is 100% committed to the current model, and disabling shared passives would open up a number of interplay options for Falloff 2.0. It's been a few months now; I wonder if Rattati's resources and/or resource availability have changed since he last told us that it wouldn't be possible?

And who are you to decide what is FoTM?
We now have someone who knows to look at data and looks for our help to interpret it, AKA Rattati.
Community lynching is no longer needed for things to be done. This isn't the old CCP Shanghai where until everyone screamed from the top of their lungs nothing was done.

Until he says something, assume the item is balanced, because otherwise he would see the data is showing its performance is a clear outlier and he will mention it to the community.

I suddenly like you far more than I did before.

Nothing wrong with predicting based on anecdotal evidence then brainstorming some suggestions if the predictions turns out to be correct.

This is exactly the type of behaviour that I want to stop.
As much as I agree with your viewpoint, the way in which you've gone about it here is disappointing.


Skimmed the thread. Gonna go catch a train now, then we can have a nice 'civil' discussion this evening, after I've stabbed cat a few times.

I don't believe he's willing to pour so much resources into that when there are so many other things he could work on.

It's sad but that's the reality of prioritization.

Dynamic Falloff for Scan Precision, and non-sharing passives, would go a long way to letting both the guys with dampeners and the guys with precision enhancers (as well as active scanners) win within the same system.

Edit: Though as much as I would like them it isn't realistic to expect these things to be implemented soon, soonish, eventually, or at all...

Not really no.
Any change I can think of will screw over someone who doesn't really need to be screwed.

Except for the Amarr.
Screw the Amarr.

mollerz

Employment History
Minja Scouts2013-05-28 01:33 - Now (1y 331d)
s1ck3r Corp2013-01-30 23:30 - 2013-05-28 01:33 (0y 118d)
Osmon Surveillance2013-01-10 07:51 - 2013-01-30 23:30 (0y 20d)

Nice corp history by the way, irrelevance is great, I remember my first corp.

edit: Yeah I remember this was before matchmaking, I was carrying the team, and you were doing nothing that's what I remember at least you could be someone else.

Don't worry about this guy, Gustavo isn't even A-Team Cap Aq

Is this what you've fallen to Gustavo? Trying to act superior in the LOCKER ROOM?

Go to the war room and tell them all about how much more awesome you are then mollerz, and then look and realize that NOBODY CARES.

And the ButtPirates2014-07-31 22:32 - 2015-01-24 22:56 (0y 177d)

there aren't many shades of gray

There are fifty, to be precise.

There are fifty, to be precise.

There are fifty, to be precise.

If we're using the RGB scale then there's actually 254 shades of grey.

Not a programmer, so just asking, how much work (and I guess manpower) would it take to rebuild the EWar codes?

Second (and third) question would be, how much work goes into trying to find a good workaround, and kind of at what point do you spend more effort into workarounds than rebuilding the code?

Regarding eWar.

CCP Rattati has done an impressive job of taking a clumsy system and making it act more dynamic.
Having said that I've got to reiterate that the current state of eWar is still in a less than ideal state.

Commandos are blind, HAVs are blind, Gal Logi are pigeon holed into one trick ponies who aren't rewarded for most of their effect (when they're effective at all), scouts are (largely) pigeon holed into "uber damped Gal" or "feral minja" styles of fit both of which can have their utility stymied by a number of contexts. The TacNet lags (and doesn't actually list ranges). The active scanner itself misbehaves in ways that give it both more and less utility than it should posses (no these don't balance out, they both make it in a poor spot in the overall game).

Falloff helped, but we still find ourselves largely in a 'yes/no' situation for many suits and roles, it's cake or death and there's only one bit of cake to go around leaving the rest of the roles with "or death" as their options and the currently 'chosen' role in a 'have your cake and eat it too' state. None of which is where things should ideally be no matter which role is the golden child and which others are fallen highlanders.

...trying to course correct from my wild decent into random movie and comic references the point is that eWar manages to simultaneously lack in utility while holding an overabundance of power, this all or nothing (mitigated but not removed by falloff) poses a problem.

In the current state of the game multiple roles are tangibly limited by eWar without many player options in the matter, you either are a scanning logi or you are not, you either are a damped scout or you are not, you either are good at playing without meaningful TacNet support (commandos really are blind) or you are not, there aren't many shades of gray for player choice or emergent behavior but worst of all one player winning this all or nothing contest can shut down whole sections of the map or play styles for the entire opposing team.

There are concepts a plenty that address this, but unfortunately things like truly dynamic scans, removing shared passive, etc. would require a ground up rebuild of the eWar code so we are faced with attempting the best work arounds we can find while trying not to invalidate any role completely (and hopefully maintain a baseline in which roles can still function well/often enough for a player to break even using them in a match).

0.02 ISK
Cross

And Monk! That bastard!