Remove Scanner Nerf?

[t0l]

Then common sense should have been applied.

"Battleship scanner? Nah, I'll put it on my transport!"

Common sense should've been a rename. Instead, a nerf was applied rather than the easy option or changing an equipment name.

>implying that the dev team has to do what's in favor of your interests

Really now, use common sense with this issue. "I put a battleship scanner meant for battleships originally and I knew this on a transport but didn't care and now I'm mad because I'm paying the price for it."

It's not just my interest. You've seen the complaints, the outcry and the polls.

That begs the question then. Why wasn't a nerf applied sooner?
They tried to fix what wasn't broke. And well, it made things worse.
However, your logic is irrelevant when applied to Spyglass Scanners. Which I tended to use more than Battleship Scanners, personally.

The general point is that they handed a 'problem', if you can call it that, badly. Rather than just rename the Scanners so that people wouldn't have wasted hundreds of millions of credits, we were just given the finger about it. Heck, we weren't even told this was going to happen. It's only because of Omicega finding the techchart before the dreaded update that we learned Scanners were going to get tech/ship-nerfed.

Ooo, Spyglass scanners. Same exact thing. Both were made for purpose use by BATTLESHIPS. Not transports.

Why would anyone think it would be a good idea to mount a battleship scanner or a spyglass scanner on a transport or anything NOT a battleship? Then complain when the devs decide to make it something battleship only, which it should have been in the first place? Use common sense.

Oh, you got extended range for scanning and cargo scanning?

What need does a transport need for that technology? Avoiding pirates? Scanning for lawfuls while smuggling to avoid them and RP interaction?

You got what was coming, you just don't feel like admitting it.

---

[Lythrilux]

Then common sense should have been applied.

"Battleship scanner? Nah, I'll put it on my transport!"

Common sense should've been a rename. Instead, a nerf was applied rather than the easy option or changing an equipment name.

>implying that the dev team has to do what's in favor of your interests

Really now, use common sense with this issue. "I put a battleship scanner meant for battleships originally and I knew this on a transport but didn't care and now I'm mad because I'm paying the price for it."

It's not just my interest. You've seen the complaints, the outcry and the polls.

That begs the question then. Why wasn't a nerf applied sooner?
They tried to fix what wasn't broke. And well, it made things worse.
However, your logic is irrelevant when applied to Spyglass Scanners. Which I tended to use more than Battleship Scanners, personally.

The general point is that they handed a 'problem', if you can call it that, badly. Rather than just rename the Scanners so that people wouldn't have wasted hundreds of millions of credits, we were just given the finger about it. Heck, we weren't even told this was going to happen. It's only because of Omicega finding the techchart before the dreaded update that we learned Scanners were going to get tech/ship-nerfed.

Ooo, Spyglass scanners. Same exact thing. Both were made for purpose use by BATTLESHIPS. Not transports.

Why would anyone think it would be a good idea to mount a battleship scanner or a spyglass scanner on a transport or anything NOT a battleship? Then complain when the devs decide to make it something battleship only, which it should have been in the first place? Use common sense.

Oh, you got extended range for scanning and cargo scanning?

What need does a transport need for that technology? Avoiding pirates? Scanning for lawfuls while smuggling to avoid them and RP interaction?

You got what was coming, you just don't feel like admitting it.

Let's compare infocards:

The Battleship Scanner requires vast amounts of energy to operate and is often installed in the largest military ships. It provides the best detection performance and range of all scanners in Sirius.

Spyglass Scanner was developed by Liberty engineers for military recon purposes. Now it serves Lane Hackers in their search for valuable goods passing through Independent Worlds.

Your view of this also seems very one-sided. Believe it or not they were actually used for purposes other than extending your ability to powertrade. You forget that these Scanners were used by Spying factions for, well, spying. Pirates used these for hunting down potential targets before they began to run away. Law Enforcement actually used these for hunting the Smugglers you mentioned. I'm sure there are loads of other examples out there of how people used these to increase RP interactions. Don't paint the picture that it's all doom and gloom by only observing a small proportion of the people who used these Scanners.

And yet again, I'm going to quote what I said:

The general point is that they handled a 'problem', if you can call it that, badly. Rather than just rename the Scanners so that people wouldn't have wasted hundreds of millions of credits, we were just given the finger about it.

---

[Nerva]

Spyglass Scanner was developed by Liberty engineers for military recon purposes. Now it serves Lane Hackers in their search for valuable goods passing through Independent Worlds.

No issue here. Both Liberty military ships (LABC and bigger) and Lane Hacker ships (GB) can use Spyglass scanner. Also Osiris and Arbiter. As a bonus LH GB can use it at 100%. I don't know why some people think it should be usable on fighters.

The general point is that they handled a 'problem', if you can call it that, badly. Rather than just rename the Scanners so that people wouldn't have wasted hundreds of millions of credits, we were just given the finger about it.

>"Let's mount Battleship Scanners on my snubs because I can and when it gets fixed I'm gonna cry about it."

Yeah. Great logic.
It was a problem. It got abused. Then it was fixed.
If you spent billions to abuse a bug then you deserved it.

Why not ask all the powertraders if a 10k transport should be introduced. I'm sure they will be totally unbiased about it ...

P.S.: Don't call me biased or one-sided about the issue. I considered buying BS Scanners for all my ships. Then I applied some common sense ... I did not buy BS Scanners for all my ships.
It would have been a good money sink though.

[Lythrilux]

Spyglass Scanner was developed by Liberty engineers for military recon purposes. Now it serves Lane Hackers in their search for valuable goods passing through Independent Worlds.

No issue here. Both Liberty military ships (LABC and bigger) and Lane Hacker ships (GB) can use Spyglass scanner. Also Osiris and Arbiter. As a bonus LH GB can use it at 100%. I don't know why some people think it should be usable on fighters.

It implies it's been modified. Ergo, perhaps it's been modified for usage on lighter vessels.

The general point is that they handled a 'problem', if you can call it that, badly. Rather than just rename the Scanners so that people wouldn't have wasted hundreds of millions of credits, we were just given the finger about it.

>"Let's mount Battleship Scanners on my snubs because I can and when it gets fixed I'm gonna cry about it."

Yeah. Great logic.
It was a problem. It got abused. Then it was fixed.
If you spent billions to abuse a bug then you deserved it.

But it's not a bug. It was a game feature, the development team just took it in an odd direction. It's hardly abuse either, that's like saying to everyone that "You were abusing the Falchion back when it was a LF, because it can cruise faster".
The Scanners were a simple, effective and useful game mechanic.

Why not ask all the powertraders if a 10k transport should be introduced. I'm sure they will be totally unbiased about it ...

We could do that, but lets avoid calling the minority the majority.

---

[Binski]

I always saw the longer range on a scanner like the BS scanner as something a player could achieve after playing long enough and being able to afford it. Over time, you could add one to your best/favorite ships to augment their performance.

I was in favor of a name change and letting all ships use them. I'd have preferred that, and maybe raising them in price a bit. I wasn't 'hurt' too bad by the nerf, but that also seems like reason enough to have simply left it be. I must admit I was enjoying my cloakable warran with BS scanner though. Was I having too much fun? Was that really abuse? Because I found an advantage that other players could just as fairly apply to themselves? I thought that was just an option in the game, not a bug. An experienced trader would have had the same scanner, and same ability to track me, as I them (at least, if they had any common sense). Oh I know what you'll say, 'that's the reason we brought the nerf into effect in the first place!'. Anyone not using a BS scanner because they were afraid of its infocard and thought it was a 'bug' was going too far. If you got bombed by a snub with a bs scanner, you should have wanted to go get one yourself, instead of whining that you couldn't survive, because it really mattered after the shooting started what scanners were being used.

They should have lower level SRP's for this stuff. In the same way its been done for shipcompat and technerf with spec ID's, so it might at least entice people who want to get rid of the nerf to go that route. Something like a SpecOps ID could be a level 3 SRP, the most expensive, level 2 could be for just ship/tech compatibility, and level 1 for simple scannernerf (within reason, I'm sure I'll never see a BS scanner on a fighter ever again ). This way not every adjustment you might want to make to your ship would need 250 mil gambled away. Create some differentiation and make smaller changes for 75 mil, then 150, and eventually 250. That way the more involved players get their chance to justify their scanner set up.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

[t0l]

Here we go again.

"I want a battleship scanner for my fighter!"

Tell me what's wrong with that sentence.

@Lyrt:

The Spyglass is a Navy battleship purpose designed to be a recon ship. It was lost to the Lane Hackers.

The Navy supposedly produced more super secret Spyglass scanners. So did the Hackers, supposedly.

The Spyglass Scanner was intended for operation by a Battleship that was designed for this purpose.

How the hell do you condense something made for a Battleship into a fighter with the same efficiency?

Same with the Battleship scanner. It was made for a battleship. Nothing changes that.

---

[Jason Williams]

"I want a battleship scanner for my fighter!"

Or... "I want a fighter for my battleship scanner!" - this is strange too

Remove Scanner Nerf? NO.

[Binski]

"I want a battleship scanner for my fighter!"

Tell me what's wrong with that sentence.

Well maybe it was pushing it a bit far, but only if you took the title that seriously. At the time there was no nerf, and anyone who decided to just use it can't be blamed for not knowing that the admins didn't want it that way. The money sink seemed (and still does) reasonable to get the range. Fighters, yeah I can understand why that should be gone. For lore reasons though, not because its 'impossible'. However BS scanners on transports and up is definitely not unreasonable to conceive. Modifications can be made.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

[SMGSterlin]

I have read this entire thread, and I now feel like some of my intelligence has been sapped after reading it.


Seriously, you all are arguing about something so minor and insignificant about the mod, that it jeopardizes the credibility of all your opinions.

Just stahp, srsly.

EDIT: Heh, this was my 2k post... Nice.

---

[Vipera Berus]

I seriously am struggling to understand why anyone would bother with one on a fighter. I have exactly 3 battleship scanners and have only had 1 ship affected by the scanner nerf and that was a cruiser. I really do find it amazing how much moaning and bitching is going on. It reminds me of my ex wife.