• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery Development Discovery Mod General Discussion Discovery Mod Balance
« Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 55 Next »
Scanner ranges

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (4): « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Scanner ranges
Offline Karst
02-01-2015, 02:45 PM,
#11
Chariot of Light
Posts: 2,987
Threads: 214
Joined: Sep 2009

Bump.

I'd still like to know why it was precisely the scanners that nobody used that had to be nerfed, and not Adv. Deep which everyone used. It just doesn't make sense.

Echo and Haste didn't know who did this, it's all very mysterious.

[Image: jWv1kDa.png]
Reply  
Offline Lythrilux
02-01-2015, 02:48 PM,
#12
Edgy Worlds
Posts: 10,356
Threads: 737
Joined: Jan 2013

I'd still like who's ever responsible to revert scanners to .86 scanners (sun)

[Image: Lythrilux.gif]
Reply  
Offline Jack_Henderson
02-01-2015, 02:53 PM,
#13
Independent Miners Guild
Posts: 6,103
Threads: 391
Joined: Nov 2010

I think we should only keep 3 scanners.

> Deep Scanner: 15k range; 3k cargo scan
> Cargo Scanner: 12k range; 5k cargo scan
> Battle ship scanner: 17k; 6k cargo scan

All the small scanners are useless anyway and could be recycled.

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!
Reply  
Offline Lythrilux
02-01-2015, 03:03 PM,
#14
Edgy Worlds
Posts: 10,356
Threads: 737
Joined: Jan 2013

That sounds good Jack, although, why can't we just have two Scanners? I really don't see the need to have all these different types.
All we need is:
Scanner: 15k range, 4k cargo scan
Heavy Scanner (renaming of the BS scanner) 20k range, 8k cargo scan, moneysink

The Spyglass scanner has no use other than being mounted on a sub-par gunboat. We might as well axe it. Furthermore we should just make the heavy scanner mountable on everything. The incursion of shipcompat with Scanners was just dumb when they could've just simply be renamed.

[Image: Lythrilux.gif]
Reply  
Offline Karst
02-01-2015, 03:19 PM,
#15
Chariot of Light
Posts: 2,987
Threads: 214
Joined: Sep 2009

Because Lyth, having the ability to trade cargo scan range for detection range is a cool thing that actually worked well before 88.

Granted, cargo scanners were basically entirely useless and adv. cargo scanners were a joke, but at least Adv. Deep or just Deep was a genuine choice.
On ships that are used primarily in situations in which they don't need to detect enemies as soon as possible, easier cargo scanning was a nice feature.

Now though, the cargo scan advantage at half of what it was is definitely not enough of an advantage to consider using anything but Adv Deep.

I'd say two are enough and the stats Jack suggested seem reasonable (won't comment on the BS scanner which is not the topic in this thread).
Edit: Actually, 2k/5k or 2k/4k would be preferable. Really should be at least twice the cargo scan range and 3k scan range is definitely more than the top detecting scanner should have, imo.

[Image: jWv1kDa.png]
Reply  
Offline Hidamari
02-27-2015, 12:52 PM,
#16
Member
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 217
Joined: Jul 2009

I still think that every class of ship should have its own scanners and set ranges, rather than the extremely drab and boring 'one size fits all' that there is.

[Image: ScannerValleydiagram_zpsaf6aef3e.png]

[Image: RKaqSve.png]
Reply  
Offline Tarator
02-28-2015, 01:13 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-28-2015, 01:18 AM by Tarator.)
#17
Member
Posts: 435
Threads: 21
Joined: Dec 2010

Hidamari's idea seems quite fair to me, except for the bombers, the range's way too small and there mustn't be a difference between bs and carrier ranges.
Also the way I see it, the BS scanner having the same range as an adv. deep scanner, thats really not right, I mean even the infocard of the BS scanner says it all (if thats even valid) - "Requiring vast amounts of energy to operate to provide the best detection range etc"
It should also be that way in real and not just in RP.

[Image: giphy.gif]
O'Rhu Cell Database|||O'Rhu Cell Feedback|||Join O'Rhu Cell|||Jump
  Reply  
Offline Stoner_Steve
02-28-2015, 01:39 AM,
#18
Master of Arms
Posts: 2,549
Threads: 339
Joined: Jan 2014

(02-01-2015, 03:03 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: That sounds good Jack, although, why can't we just have two Scanners? I really don't see the need to have all these different types.
All we need is:
Scanner: 15k range, 4k cargo scan
Heavy Scanner (renaming of the BS scanner) 20k range, 8k cargo scan, moneysink

(02-27-2015, 12:52 PM)Hidamari Wrote: I still think that every class of ship should have its own scanners and set ranges, rather than the extremely drab and boring 'one size fits all' that there is.


I'm torn between simplicity or diversity
Reply  
Offline Sandloon
02-28-2015, 01:47 AM,
#19
Member
Posts: 39
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2015

Diversity. Bombers and heavy fighter/gunboats should have terrible scan radius. They are meant as fleet vessels and not meant to fly solo. They are deployed from a Carrier and told what to attack.
Reply  
Offline Pancakes
02-28-2015, 02:19 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-28-2015, 02:21 AM by Pancakes.)
#20
Member
Posts: 3,395
Threads: 151
Joined: Jul 2010

(02-27-2015, 12:52 PM)Hidamari Wrote: I still think that every class of ship should have its own scanners and set ranges, rather than the extremely drab and boring 'one size fits all' that there is.

[Image: ScannerValleydiagram_zpsaf6aef3e.png]

This. I also seem to remember it from the past, it's not the first time you've linked it, is it?

Edit: Only thing I do not agree with is Medium transports having bigger scan range than VHFs, they should have the exact same range. Though it's going a bit too much in detail I guess.

[Image: p2SKLap.jpg?1]
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
Reply  
Pages (4): « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode