Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sobic
Appetite 4 Destruction
29
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:05:33 -
[1] - Quote
Posting separate of the Recon changes thread.
Instead of making one class of ship immune to D-scan. How bout making some solid changes to D-scan across the board.
Like making the results being range based, with complete results only possible at shorter ranges.
(Long range)Object ->(Mid range) Ship ->(Short range) Ship type
Possibly making it based on sig or ship class. So you could still give certain ships a D-scan advantage but not making them completely OP with no downsides.(Like how Covert cloaks are balanced)
Making off grid recons that can deal some hurt a mandatory threat is bad game design. For all secs of space, and almost all play styles outside of gang/blob. |
Iain Cariaba
769
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:40:39 -
[2] - Quote
Sobic wrote:Posting separate of the Combat Recon changes thread.
Instead of making one class of ship(Combat recons) immune to D-scan. How bout making some solid changes to D-scan across the board.
Like making the results being range based, with complete results only possible at shorter ranges.
(Long range)Object ->(Mid range) Ship ->(Short range) Ship type
Possibly making it based on sig or ship class. So you could still give certain ships a D-scan advantage but not making them completely OP with no downsides.(Like how Covert cloaks are balanced)
Making off grid combat recons that can deal some hurt a mandatory threat is bad game design. For all secs of space, and almost all play styles outside of gang/blob. If you think this needs to be done to dscan, you're using it wrong. Proper use of the directional scanner is more than just the 14.3au, 360-¦ scan.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Sobic
Appetite 4 Destruction
32
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:51:41 -
[3] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Sobic wrote:Posting separate of the Combat Recon changes thread.
Instead of making one class of ship(Combat recons) immune to D-scan. How bout making some solid changes to D-scan across the board.
Like making the results being range based, with complete results only possible at shorter ranges.
(Long range)Object ->(Mid range) Ship ->(Short range) Ship type
Possibly making it based on sig or ship class. So you could still give certain ships a D-scan advantage but not making them completely OP with no downsides.(Like how Covert cloaks are balanced)
Making off grid combat recons that can deal some hurt a mandatory threat is bad game design. For all secs of space, and almost all play styles outside of gang/blob. If you think this needs to be done to dscan, you're using it wrong. Proper use of the directional scanner is more than just the 14.3au, 360-¦ scan.
Not sure what assumption you're making. My idea posted has nothing to do the the angle of scan, but that could of course be used to add more depth to D-scan as well. Possibly making a D-scan compass like the sig compass(but not automatic). So then if you want to know what exactly an object is you can narrow your scan in the direction it shows its coming from.
How bout being constructive, and helping me flesh out the idea. Instead the atypical pretentious forum response. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
938
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:55:26 -
[4] - Quote
inb4 lock for duplicate thread
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Sobic
Appetite 4 Destruction
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:58:33 -
[5] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:inb4 lock for duplicate thread
Seeing your post from the recon thread. I see you're inability to add anything to the discussion is consistent. |
Iain Cariaba
771
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:13:59 -
[6] - Quote
Sobic wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Sobic wrote:Posting separate of the Combat Recon changes thread.
Instead of making one class of ship(Combat recons) immune to D-scan. How bout making some solid changes to D-scan across the board.
Like making the results being range based, with complete results only possible at shorter ranges.
(Long range)Object ->(Mid range) Ship ->(Short range) Ship type
Possibly making it based on sig or ship class. So you could still give certain ships a D-scan advantage but not making them completely OP with no downsides.(Like how Covert cloaks are balanced)
Making off grid combat recons that can deal some hurt a mandatory threat is bad game design. For all secs of space, and almost all play styles outside of gang/blob. If you think this needs to be done to dscan, you're using it wrong. Proper use of the directional scanner is more than just the 14.3au, 360-¦ scan. Not sure what assumption you're making,I think you may be confused. My idea posted has nothing to do the the angle of scan, but that could of course be used to add more depth to D-scan as well. Possibly making a D-scan compass like the sig compass(but not automatic). So then if you want to know what exactly an object is you can narrow your scan in the direction it shows its coming from. How bout being constructive, and helping me flesh out the idea. Instead the atypical pretentious forum response. Or at least explain in some more detail what you're trying to say!?! Why would I help you flesh out a bad idea about one of the few systems in EvE that isn't broken?
Dscan doesn't need more depth. If you know how to use it you can pinpoint precisely which celestial/anomaly someone is sitting at, or precisely where the proper needs to drop probes to get a warp in.
Dscan works fine. No need to fix what isn't broken.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Sobic
Appetite 4 Destruction
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:23:52 -
[7] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Sobic wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Sobic wrote:Posting separate of the Combat Recon changes thread.
Instead of making one class of ship(Combat recons) immune to D-scan. How bout making some solid changes to D-scan across the board.
Like making the results being range based, with complete results only possible at shorter ranges.
(Long range)Object ->(Mid range) Ship ->(Short range) Ship type
Possibly making it based on sig or ship class. So you could still give certain ships a D-scan advantage but not making them completely OP with no downsides.(Like how Covert cloaks are balanced)
Making off grid combat recons that can deal some hurt a mandatory threat is bad game design. For all secs of space, and almost all play styles outside of gang/blob. If you think this needs to be done to dscan, you're using it wrong. Proper use of the directional scanner is more than just the 14.3au, 360-¦ scan. Not sure what assumption you're making,I think you may be confused. My idea posted has nothing to do the the angle of scan, but that could of course be used to add more depth to D-scan as well. Possibly making a D-scan compass like the sig compass(but not automatic). So then if you want to know what exactly an object is you can narrow your scan in the direction it shows its coming from. How bout being constructive, and helping me flesh out the idea. Instead the atypical pretentious forum response. Or at least explain in some more detail what you're trying to say!?! Why would I help you flesh out a bad idea about one of the few systems in EvE that isn't broken? Dscan doesn't need more depth. If you know how to use it you can pinpoint precisely which celestial/anomaly someone is sitting at, or precisely where the proper needs to drop probes to get a warp in. Dscan works fine. No need to fix what isn't broken.
D-scan does work fine, but CCP-Rise has decided to mess with it with D-scan immunity. Instead of simplistic game breaking passives. We find a middle ground by working with what we already have.
If you're for D-scan immunity, then your contradicting yourself. Because at that point D-scan will be broken. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
711
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:29:50 -
[8] - Quote
So you're saying I should double down if I'm dealt a pair of 3s?? |
Tiberian Deci
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:45:56 -
[9] - Quote
The only dscan-related change I want to see is that it only reports hull types. I.E. Eagle = Gila = Onyx = Moa because they are all based on the Moa hull. Example: you dscan a Brave fleet and you see 150 moas and 50 scythes. You have no idea the exact number of Moa/ Eagle/ Onyx/ Scythe/ Scimitars because they have overlapping hulls. It could make things really interesting.
That being said I don't know if this would end up making the game better or worse, still kicking that thought around, but it would be interesting. |
scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
232
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:48:07 -
[10] - Quote
Does this mean you are also against cloaked ships not being on dscan? |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
877
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:55:01 -
[11] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Dscan works fine. No need to fix what isn't broken.
Dscan works fine but that isn't to say it can't be improved.
I'm not necessarily for any changes but I think with the proposed change to combat recons it could be interesting to look at other potential angles - I quite like the idea that you could maybe have an increased in range of dscan functionality but a decrease in the range of accurate results. |
DaeHan Minhyok
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
40
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:36:52 -
[12] - Quote
It seems reasonable that larger ships should have longer range d-scan than frigs. As for arguing that a class specific trait should be femoved, well, didn't hear that about interceptors, though that being said, it'd be nice to see a t3 cruiser subsystem added this d-scan cloak to those ships too. |
Liet Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:50:36 -
[13] - Quote
I made my own thread for Dscan today too.
My 2 cents worth: Like many things in the game, D scan should not have absolute results. Rather, it should be possible to detect any ship with enough power (mods, skills, etc which we don't currently have) and good technique with the scanner, but some ships should only be detectable at short range with max power. None of this "It's cloaked so it absolutely never gets seen" stuff.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
1841
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:52:09 -
[14] - Quote
Sobic wrote:Posting separate of the Combat Recon changes thread. please stop right there. We dont need an extra 50 threads every time a change comes out because someone thinks their opinion deserves its own thread. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
878
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:04:06 -
[15] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Sobic wrote:Posting separate of the Combat Recon changes thread. please stop right there. We dont need an extra 50 threads every time a change comes out because someone thinks their opinion deserves its own thread.
I suggested in the other thread making a new thread on the subject as while there is some overlap with the combat recon changes it is also somewhat of a tangent to the topic of that thread as there is potentially some interesting things that could be done with dscan (that isn't to say they should be done but its interesting to see what people think on the subject). |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |