DUST Search - Scout Registry / Killboard

Vitantur Nothus wrote:

gustavo acosta wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

I remember someone here converting the current scout ewar bonuses to module efficacy quid pro quo.

I need that data nao Blink

, because of reasons

What better time to do that change now?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OhoZzXwbgYG4VmEyEJUbULq04hZeTXWIIxIEnwYIo2g/edit?usp=sharing

I made this in hotfix charlie, but I could not find a rounded percentage to efficacy that would not change the current meta. I added an effiecincy bonus to a reduced e-war bonus so everything would round well, and the meta is left in relative tack. There's probably a better version of this but I might as well throw my hat into the ring...

The idea Rattati is referring to is more a rewiring than a rebalance.

Presently, Scout bonuses apply directly to frame. A Scout gets his EWAR bonus whether or not he extends upon it by using modules. This creates instances wherein "slayer scouts" tank while receiving benefit from their EWAR bonus. The idea at hand is to rewire those bonuses such that they point toward EWAR modules rather than the suit itself. This is a means by which to encourage Scouts to run EWAR modules rather than HP tank.

Which may all prove moot if EWAR is no longer to be the Scouts' strength.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 178 post(s)
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 368	Posted - 2014.11.18 22:22:00 - [25201] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Spademan wrote: If I'm not mistaken Minnie and Amarr scouts need 3. How does 4 sound? AND a proto cloak! If I don't wear the cloak, and activate it, I can't beat the scan. I don't think these numbers are right. We're talking about dodging passives. AM Scout scans at 18 dB. 3 damps puts you 16 dB. You only need to activate cloak to dodge GA Logi focused. If Assault Profile were lowered to 41dB, he could dodge AM Scout scans at an investment of 4 damps (17dB).
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5957	Posted - 2014.11.18 22:34:00 - [25202] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Spademan wrote: If I'm not mistaken Minnie and Amarr scouts need 3. How does 4 sound? AND a proto cloak! If I don't wear the cloak, and activate it, I can't beat the scan. I don't think these numbers are right. We're talking about dodging passives. You only need activate proto cloak to dodge GA Logi + Focused. The best passives in the game are the AM Scout's at 18 dB. Three complex damps puts AM/MN Scout at 16 dB. If Assault Profile were lowered to 41dB, he could dodge AM Scout scans at an investment of 4 damps (17dB). Good call. For some reason I was under the impression that 3 damps wouldn't cut it to beat Amarr scans. That could have something to do with me largely running std suits. I think I need to rework some of my advanced suits when I am off. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
gustavo acosta Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 393	Posted - 2014.11.18 22:37:00 - [25203] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I remember someone here converting the current scout ewar bonuses to module efficacy quid pro quo. I need that data nao , because of reasons What better time to do that change now? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OhoZzXwbgYG4VmEyEJUbULq04hZeTXWIIxIEnwYIo2g/edit?usp=sharing I made this in hotfix charlie, but I could not find a rounded percentage to efficacy that would not change the current meta. I added an effiecincy bonus to a reduced e-war bonus so everything would round well, and the meta is left in relative tack. There's probably a better version of this but I might as well throw my hat into the ring... Gallente scout, heavy, logi, and assault Eternal Can I haz ur isk?
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 369	Posted - 2014.11.18 22:52:00 - [25204] - Quote gustavo acosta wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I remember someone here converting the current scout ewar bonuses to module efficacy quid pro quo. I need that data nao , because of reasons What better time to do that change now? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OhoZzXwbgYG4VmEyEJUbULq04hZeTXWIIxIEnwYIo2g/edit?usp=sharing I made this in hotfix charlie, but I could not find a rounded percentage to efficacy that would not change the current meta. I added an effiecincy bonus to a reduced e-war bonus so everything would round well, and the meta is left in relative tack. There's probably a better version of this but I might as well throw my hat into the ring... The idea Rattati is referring to is more a rewiring than a rebalance. Presently, Scout bonuses apply directly to frame. A Scout gets his EWAR bonus whether or not he extends upon it by using modules. This creates instances wherein "slayer scouts" tank while receiving benefit from their EWAR bonus. The idea at hand is to rewire those bonuses such that they point toward EWAR modules rather than the suit itself. This is a means by which to encourage Scouts to run EWAR modules rather than HP tank. Which may all prove moot if EWAR is no longer to be the Scouts' strength.
Haerr Dead Man's Game RUST415 1953	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:01:00 - [25205] - Quote I like the idea of EWAR being focused around and balanced around medium frames. With light suits being an exception rather than a superior participant. Scouts give up any combat bonuses and EWAR bonuses in favour of the privilege of remaining (almost) unseen as well as unscannable at (almost) any range, in addition to the added utility of a 2nd equipment slot. InterScout balance would be in a better place if the Scout role bonus entailed both the Cloak Field and a bonus to Dampening / Dampeners. Being able to completely sidestep any and all scanning attempts is a huge boon and in it self more than enough for the class that gets it. Scout suits no longer having superior EWAR bonuses isn't going to exclude us from participating, it will how ever prevent us being the only ones that can participate. If Assault suits fitted for flanking (3cPDs) could avoid any Scout @ Medium range Dust would be a lot more fun. If said Assault flanking fit could also hide from a GalLogis PRO Active Scanner even more so. Scouts would still retain the ability to scan down loads of suits, also Scouts would still be the only ones that could hide from Focused scanners and most suits @ Short Range. I ran over Jebus McKing in FW The game said -50WP But it felt like +over 9000 WP
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 370	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:06:00 - [25206] - Quote CPM intends to gift our recon role elsewhere. Dampened Meds will have 3x our HP at the cost of slightly less mobility. Where do we fit in, Haerr? Do we become Assault Lite with a cloak? Haven't we been nerfed repeatedly for exactly that?
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17750	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:09:00 - [25207] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am going to disagree with the following boil downed statement "Scouts should have: Superior Range, Superior Strength, AND Superior Stealth." If I had to pick only one of the above it be superior stealth; I got mk. 1 optics they're good enough for hunting. GA - Competitive stealth at least level of investment CA - Competitive long-range / low-intensity scans AM - Competitive short-range / high-intensity scans No one Scout is strong in all things EWAR. If such a Scout existed, he'd have 250HP. Let's compare that balance-wise to a 600HP Logi running 18dB passive scans while repping a Heavy and dropping Uplinks and Hives. Where does that leave the other 29 suits? CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 373	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:20:00 - [25208] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am going to disagree with the following boil downed statement "Scouts should have: Superior Range, Superior Strength, AND Superior Stealth." If I had to pick only one of the above it be superior stealth; I got mk. 1 optics they're good enough for hunting. GA - Competitive stealth at least level of investment CA - Competitive long-range / low-intensity scans AM - Competitive short-range / high-intensity scans No one Scout is strong in all things EWAR. If such a Scout existed, he'd have 250HP. Let's compare that balance-wise to a 600HP Logi running 18dB passive scans while repping a Heavy and dropping Uplinks and Hives. Where does that leave the other 29 suits? Like Ghost Kaisar suggested, they should play their own EWAR game just like they play their own HP game. Should I run 1000HP or should I damp and only have 600? If Rattati rolls out scout HP tradeoff and/or efficacy bonuses, Scouts won't be able to participate at their present med-like HP level. They will subside in number when they can no longer play the HP game. Those that remain will rely on their damps for survival and their scans for squad value. If Scout EWAR is further damaged, the only Scouts you'll see in PC will be those running HP tank with shotguns slaying alongside the slayers ... the very fit we point to and say "here is the basis for all Scout nerfs". Edit: And perhaps an occasional Minja.
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5958	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:23:00 - [25209] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am going to disagree with the following boil downed statement "Scouts should have: Superior Range, Superior Strength, AND Superior Stealth." If I had to pick only one of the above it be superior stealth; I got mk. 1 optics they're good enough for hunting. GA - Competitive stealth at least level of investment CA - Competitive long-range / low-intensity scans AM - Competitive short-range / high-intensity scans No one Scout is strong in all things EWAR. If such a Scout existed, he'd have 250HP. Let's compare that balance-wise to a 600HP Logi running 18dB passive scans while repping a Heavy and dropping Uplinks and Hives. Where does that leave the other 29 suits? and 6 vehicles even. This is a game wide discussion and needs to apply to everything. We need to think biggest picture here. Last time I checked, HP made up a significant portion of that. Tanks are still incredibly powerful. LAVs are spammed across the map to give slow heavies the ability to move across the battlefield. Assaults can still easily kill scouts once they are identified. Though there is perhaps room here to give Assaults superior recharge that scouts currently have. Logis could using some buffing, and that can come with the EQ changes Rattati is discussing. Heavies are just as OP if not more OP than scouts, so lets not pretend they are hurting any. I don't think that Mediums should be left out of the EWAR picture, but I don't think further nerfing scouts is the answer. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
gustavo acosta Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 394	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:31:00 - [25210] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: gustavo acosta wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I remember someone here converting the current scout ewar bonuses to module efficacy quid pro quo. I need that data nao , because of reasons What better time to do that change now? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OhoZzXwbgYG4VmEyEJUbULq04hZeTXWIIxIEnwYIo2g/edit?usp=sharing I made this in hotfix charlie, but I could not find a rounded percentage to efficacy that would not change the current meta. I added an effiecincy bonus to a reduced e-war bonus so everything would round well, and the meta is left in relative tack. There's probably a better version of this but I might as well throw my hat into the ring... The idea Rattati is referring to is more a rewiring than a rebalance. Presently, Scout bonuses apply directly to frame. A Scout gets his EWAR bonus whether or not he extends upon it by using modules. This creates instances wherein "slayer scouts" tank while receiving benefit from their EWAR bonus. The idea at hand is to rewire those bonuses such that they point toward EWAR modules rather than the suit itself. This is a means by which to encourage Scouts to run EWAR modules rather than HP tank. Which may all prove moot if EWAR is no longer to be the Scouts' strength. I was only referring to the E-war section. The only reason I didn't make a strict efficiency bonus is because it would keep the current meta of scouts vs. scans(also couldn't find a nice rounded number that would refrain from changing the meta) to efficiency which I personally don't think should be changed. But if you wanna figure out a nice round number here's the equation. If he wants to read over my regen proposal as well that's an unforseen consequence of my attempt to help with the numbers. (I'm too lazy to cut and paste the e-war numbers to another spreadsheet, as well as add every individual dropsuit's E-war numbers) Here if you want to make your own spreadsheet here's the efficiency equation. f(x)=x-[x((module percentageefficiency bonus)+module percentage))] Dampening f(x)=x+[x((module percentageefficiency bonus)+module percentage))] Precision x being base profile/precision as well as modified profile/precision Gallente scout, heavy, logi, and assault Eternal Can I haz ur isk?

Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 376	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:34:00 - [25211] - Quote Lol @ Zatara "Scouts were fine before 1.8 ... very much viable and competitive" Its as though the 1000 pages in this thread don't exist. The data we collected for months on end. The statistics we provided which demonstrated in no uncertain terms that Scouts were hurting. The rare Dev post which spoke to the same effect; we see that you're struggling, we're working on something, hang in there. Let's pretend none of happened. Let's revise history. It's politically expedient. A :: slow clap :: for Zatara.
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5959	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:39:00 - [25212] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Lol @ Zatara "Scouts were fine before 1.8 ... very much viable and competitive" Its as though the 1000 pages in this thread don't exist. The data we collected for months on end. The statistics we provided which demonstrated in no uncertain terms that Scouts were hurting. The massive underutilization rates. The massive performance disparity. The rare Dev post which spoke to the same effect; we see that you're struggling, we're working on something, hang in there, Scouts! Let's pretend none of it happened. Let's revise history. It's politically expedient. A :: slow clap :: for Zatara. He is clearly showing his bias now. I am sure that is what CCP was thinking prior to 1.8. Scouts are fine, lets give them a cloak and make them OP... Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17756	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:51:00 - [25213] - Quote I don't think 1.6 scouts wherever fine for one moment. I have to say though 1.8's scouts are the polar opposite. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 381	Posted - 2014.11.19 00:05:00 - [25214] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I don't think 1.6 scouts wherever fine for one moment. I have to say though 1.8's scouts are the polar opposite. Agreed 100%. Underpowered one day and overpowered the next.
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5961	Posted - 2014.11.19 00:12:00 - [25215] - Quote Do you see any posts from mine in the last page of the EWAR discussion? I may have broken the forums... Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
Cass Caul 1611	Posted - 2014.11.19 00:50:00 - [25216] - Quote On 5/23/14 in responce to me saying 5% per level module efficacy bonus on dampeners as a role bonus Zatara Rought wrote: I REALLY hope this is mostly facetiousness because believing you and moody want to make scout even more OP by making all of them unscannable at 3 damps is so mind blowing I almost had a brain aneurism mixed with an attack of apoplexy. 5/24, Quote: n the meantime? nothing. MAYBE 5% For the moment until a proper rebalance to e-war occurs I am fine if gal only require 2 damps while the rest take 3 in addition to a reduction to the innate repair. In the future rebalancing so that the cal bonus get you to say...16db with quad (this assumes my assumptions based off that scanning table were correct) and the gal logi focused was say..stayed 15. Then allow the gal to get to 16 db with 2 complex damps, but only 2 complex not 1 complex 1 enhanced. and then allow the gal to require 2 complex and perhaps an enhanced or something...but 3 slots and a ton of pause...in order to get under 14 db and thus beat the focused. the #'s for slots were the ones I care about..the db ** was arbitrary. Maybe nerf the cal bonus as well by a limited amount so that passive end all be all specialists get 16 db and not 15? or would that ** everything up? thoughts? Zatara has cronies that try and white-knight for him. Ken came in here and said I was bullshitting when I said Zatara is against 1.7 levels of slot commitment to dampening On Hiatus. This is my smartphone alt
Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4730	Posted - 2014.11.19 01:05:00 - [25217] - Quote Cass Caul wrote: -snip- yes I totally support you needing 3 damps to get under lol gal logi focused scans. not 4 damps. that was part of what was dumb in 1.7. dunno why that was ever unclear. but that'd 3 damps...no dampening from cloak. and for the one piece of equipment one needs 14 PG to fit ONE on a gal logi...feasibly with 2 focused scanners...you could check 45 degrees (1/8) of your surroundings for 5 seconds at a time with the long cooldown of what...30 seconds? And we can still beat it with 3 damps? Sounds like an improvement from 4 damps in 1.7...especially when we got an extra high/low. B3RT > PFBHz > TEAM > MHPD > IMPS > FA They call me ~Princess Zatata~ Skype: Zatara.Rought Twitter: @ZataraRought
Cass Caul 1613	Posted - 2014.11.19 01:57:00 - [25218] - Quote Ok, so this was definitely my dumbest moment in a DUST match ever. I was running min-logi on my main and ran away from some reds, thinking I was free and clear I dropped an uplink and a nanohive. A cloaked Scout was approaching, I don't know why but in my head I was just like "obviously he wants nanohive." and I let him get close to me. Then, I was trying to run past him and the passage was too narrow for both of us to fit so I'm like "Dude, move out of my way!" and I melee'd him. Then I kept trying to walk past him and all of a sudden I was dead. "Ohhh, that was a red dot. He was being so obvious I thought he was on my team." Additionally, while playing today I melee'd 3 different sentinels (a min, cal, and amarr- may have been the same person in all 3) No myos, just base gal-assault and gal-scout melee damage. It was as silly as it was enjoyable. On Hiatus. This is my smartphone alt
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 2885	Posted - 2014.11.19 02:00:00 - [25219] - Quote Just ran into an invincible tank, and learned a valuable lesson: never squad with scrubs, they will not follow a single goddamn order you give them. I died 8 times to him. I would get behind him, drop two remotes, AV made him, and he would just either one shot me with his small rail, or jump out with his heavy suit and buzz me down instantly. I couldn't kill him. I was miserable. I asked my squad to being AV, and they didn't lift a finger to help. In a game where it requires 3 people to down 1 man who uses a tank, having to work with non-scrubs is essential. "Minja" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ I piss Remote Explosives and shit Shotgun shells.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 5465	Posted - 2014.11.19 02:05:00 - [25220] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Just ran into an invincible tank, and learned a valuable lesson: never squad with scrubs, they will not follow a single goddamn order you give them. I died 8 times to him. I would get behind him, drop two remotes, AV made him, and he would just either one shot me with his small rail, or jump out with his heavy suit and buzz me down instantly. I couldn't kill him. I was miserable. I asked my squad to being AV, and they didn't lift a finger to help. In a game where it requires 3 people to down 1 man who uses a tank, having to work with non-scrubs is essential. You want to break a HAV Call me Last week Heavy got out of HAV to kill meGÇª I was standing on top of it I hopped down o the other side and started hacking itGÇª he jumped back in and zipped away into the distanceGÇª only to explode when I checked my watch. MOAR Ladders

Cat Merc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 13304	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:19:00 - [25221] - Quote So umm, I keep forgetting. How does rounding for EWAR work? Does it always round up? Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 388	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:20:00 - [25222] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: So umm, I keep forgetting. How does rounding for EWAR work? Does it always round up? Rounds to nearest whole. Ties go to scanner. On the topic: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2468357#post2468357 What do you guys think? Makes EWAR accessible (and meaningful) to MedFrames without slamming Scouts.
Cass Caul 1615	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:21:00 - [25223] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: So umm, I keep forgetting. How does rounding for EWAR work? Does it always round up? Rounds to the nearest. On Hiatus. This is my smartphone alt
Cat Merc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 13304	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:21:00 - [25224] - Quote Thanks Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14800	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:23:00 - [25225] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Just ran into an invincible tank, and learned a valuable lesson: never squad with scrubs, they will not follow a single goddamn order you give them. I died 8 times to him. I would get behind him, drop two remotes, AV made him, and he would just either one shot me with his small rail, or jump out with his heavy suit and buzz me down instantly. I couldn't kill him. I was miserable. I asked my squad to being AV, and they didn't lift a finger to help. In a game where it requires 3 people to down 1 man who uses a tank, having to work with non-scrubs is essential. It's not that hard to bust a Tank.... but yeah its bloody ridiculous than a vehicle pilot can "Undock" in a Sentinel instantly and gank anything close to it or escape with impunity as a scout. As for the small turrets thing.....damn good show on his part. That's what I do when infantry is strafing too fast for my Missile or Rail HAV. On the 5300 (7120 Shield EHP) buffer tank I often run in Pub Skirm and Ambush OS-whatchamacallit you can sit their and plink away at AV much more accurately than with a blaster or Missile turret though you risk blue dots nicking off with your tank. "The moment passed in thunder and calamitous intent and yet no order was given to retreat or give their ground"
Cat Merc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 13304	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:24:00 - [25226] - Quote What if it's exactly in the middle? Like 22.5? Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 388	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:25:00 - [25227] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: What if it's exactly in the middle? Like 22.5? Math rules apply. That's a 23, sir.
Cat Merc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 13305	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:33:00 - [25228] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Cat Merc wrote: What if it's exactly in the middle? Like 22.5? Math rules apply. That's a 23, sir. Alright, thanks. While I know how math rules work, this is CCP logic. You can never know :P Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 388	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:34:00 - [25229] - Quote Point taken
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 392	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:53:00 - [25230] - Quote Suggestion: MedFrame EWAR Buffs



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page