Suggested Change to Passive Targeting Modules

Council Of Stellar Management Assembly Hall
1

As it currently stands the Passive Targeter I and its variants are relatively niche modules found mostly on cargo-scanning ships in High Sec. Although I’ve heard it’s been used as somewhat of a meme in some alpha fleets in the past, I don’t believe it’s in common use for most pvpers today for what I believe are 2 reasons:

  1. Its a cumbersome module to use. You can only passively target a single ship at a time, requiring the player to first click on the module and then click on their target. To passively lock another target you have to manually unlock your current target, wait for the module to cycle, click the module again, and then click your secondary target.

  2. It takes up a valuable midslot for relatively little gain. Literally anything else is more useful.

The suggested changes:

  1. Change the activation method to that of a constantly cycling module (i.e. like a sensor booster). This is a quality of life change - just activate the module and lock targets normally, except now you don’t show a yellowbox while doing so.

  2. Add a malus to the max number of lockable targets (and/or scan res, and/or targeting range) while the module is active. Maybe make it similar to how the Siege Module used to work for dreads, limiting your ship to a max of 2 targets while the module is active. Honestly the number is arbitrary and would have to be balanced.

  3. Add scripts to mitigate the penalties to max targets, scan res, and targeting range. Not really that important, just an added level of complexity/customization seen in other midslot sensor modules.

Why do I think this would be an interesting/beneficial change?

  1. It’s much more user friendly than the current system. No more need to worry about your passive targeter actually working as advertised. Overall less clicking around, allowing you to focus on actually fighting your ship.

  2. It would add a new method of countering Logistics ships. Somewhat obvious: no yellowbox means less time for you to react and broadcast for reps and/or align and warp.

  3. Despite the advantages, there would still significant disadvantages to fitting a Passive Targeter over something else (basic fitting opportunity cost in the loss of a midslot, not to mention the potential inability to target more than 2 targets at a time [again, arbitrary number]).

In summary, does the Passive Targeter absolutely need to be changed? No, probably not - but I think changes laid out above would at least move it from the category of ‘meme module’ to something that could arguably be worth fielding.

2

Well, I would think that it would still be hard sell with the proposed buff because of the fierce competition from other mid slot mods. So, I’m thinking that it might be better for it to become a highslot mod. Of course, I seriously doubt anyone is going to trade a turret/launcher for the passive targeter, but it might actually see use on ships with a utility high.

idk. Something to think about, I guess.
No P2W

3

The main goal is to make it more accessible. You could absolutely change the slotting arrangement around to make it more competitive. Another suggestion I’ve heard would be to make it a passive module (like a signal amplifier).

I’m a firm believer in the KISS principle. Just make it work like a sensor booster.

4

If I were a ganker I would love it as a highslot, in ships like Thrashers and Catalysts it would be quite nice I think as they have a utility slot if I remember correctly. This leaves a mid slot for more useful stuff on top of making you able to look at the inside of your targets.
I’m not one, so I’m really just guessing about this being as good as it sounds to me, but most of the time all I put in that extra slot is a salvager. Sometimes a nos… autocorrect won’t let me type that… Or maybe a neutralizer. But I rarely seem to need either of those.

5

Here is an idea…
Replace “Passive Targeting Module” with a “Scrip for a Sensor Booster” that performs the exact same function… ( just like ECCM module many moons ago )

Call it something like “Suppressed Targeting Script”…

BUT while active the penalties would have to be something like:
-25% to -50% to base Targeting Range,
-25% to -50% to base Scan Res. ( Lock on speed “nerf” ),
-50% to max number of Locked Targets, truncated to the nearest whole number ( dived by 2 and rounded down to the whole number, 7 would become 3 for example )
-25% to -50% to base Sensor Strength so your ship is more vulnerable to ECM ( OR easier to “combat scan” with probes if some one leaves it running by mistake in a “Safe Spot” )

6

If you need to put so many penalties on something for it to be balanced it’s a sign you need to rethink the idea.

Now why you think it needs all that I don’t know it really isn’t all that powerful a tool and your already losing out on all the bonuses a sebo could be providing.

7

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.