lol guys, I just made that number up.

lol guys, I just made that number up.

.
How about a check-in thread?

lucrative?
Did you mean effective? or perhaps "less likely for you to die"? :)


btw, did you lay a trap for one to roll over, or did you still do the sneakup strategy?

I find that laying a big-ol trap is great for idiot tankers that keep going through the same path repeatedly.
Sadly, I see those types very rarely. Most ones I run into, are on the move almost all the time, and rarely use the same path twice.

123

Quote:
New Commando skills coming in 1.8 should help make this role a little more enticing ...
- CCP Logibro

Source:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1681633#post1681633

---

That's pretty dang specific. Says Hugs inbound for Commando. Gives a specific build. Doesn't qualify with "we're aiming for" or "if all goes well" or "soon".

So ... if the dozen or so Commandos out there are finally getting (much needed) attention, then maybe, just maybe, the 123 of us might too. Most certainly not more probable than not, but maybe. :-)

Also, \o/ for the there might be a problem with tanks even though he didn't say when they plan to address it.

I will always believe that the Commando is better suited for scouts. We even have the black eagle.

I mean, think about what the commando is to the heavy. Higher speed, +1 equipment slot, dual light weapons... Even the name would be great for the scout.
Instead of being called the Commandon't there'd be something extra for scouts.

Profile Dampening - do Lv5 scouts need higher than Lv2?

I thought it was worked out Lv2 with basic mod beat all but Focused.
- Saw a thread stating Lv3 is needed

Would just like to know. Even though I dont have much to spend SP on I still like to invest the least possible needed in a skill.

If I recall, this depends on decimal rounding rules, and whether or not a tie favors the scanner or scanned.

with pampening 5, scout ops 2 you need a complex dampener. with scout ops 5 and dampening 2 you need an enhanced dampener...which means you can't use it without AUR.

That's the one! No wait ... that wasn't the question :-)

On Topic:
1) Does profile rating dictate how fast your blip & chevron fade after LOS acquisition?
2) Does profile rating dictate whether Active Scanner reads "Some Margin of Error" vs "No Margin of Error"?

If I recall, one scenario came really close ... like .02 or something. So choosing Level II or III came down to how decimal rounding rules are handled, and whether or not a tie favors the scanner or scanned. Forgot the progression at hand. I love you, Brother, but I don't care to redo all the math :-)

No worries

Will go to Lv3 PD

Also on Precision - does it just allow you to see lower profile suits or do blip show brighter / last longer (going off SR's other post)?
- If these things were readily known and better yet true then more people might invest in these skills and use the modules.

Also on Precision - does it just allow you to see lower profile suits or do blip show brighter / last longer (going off SR's other post)?
- If these things were readily known and better yet true then more people might invest in these skills and use the modules.

no, just the usual.


the brighter/dimer is a very, very rare edge case. I described it in one of my detailed writeups months ago when Iwas doing research on field of vision and range for the FOV lightup effect.

From what I can remember, objects can appear dimmed out on your radar, when they are just BARELY on the edge of your range. We're talking about 1m distance from maximum range, if I recall.
But if you highlight them by loking at them, they brighten up, and stay bright for 2 seconds after you arent looking at them any more.

What are you basing this input on, Quil?
You present with fact; you'd better be referencing actual research.

"I feel this way ... but don't know why ... no, I didn't actually test ... no, I haven't actually skilled into ... rarely even use it, but I've seen it used a few times ... but my opinion is purest fact ... until you prove otherwise ... why are you attacking me?"

^ This is not actual research.
And this post is not a personal attack.
I'm growing quite tired of your weighing in with "facts" on subjects you know little-to-nothing about.

Give this Community a reason to believe you aren't here just to troll us.
Apologies in advance if you actually researched this subject, this time.
I hope you did your research, and I hope I'm wrong about you being a troll.

There's nothing wrong with offering an opinion or perspective, but that's quite different from presenting a fact. You must learn to differentiate between the two. So you know, I actually enjoy hearing your perspective.

That was a bit of a fail mollerz, but good effort.