As a scout, hell no! Why does a logi get to be logi + slayer + tank and scout has to be a spotting b!tch for that logi? No. Give scouts vision of all squad member rather than giving the squad intel on what scout is seeing, then I'll call it fair.

Scouts are at a huge disadvantage in every way except for stealth/speed. Adding incentive for squad mates to sabotage the scout while they try to perform in the only way they can would be a horrible idea. Imagine if scouts could sabotage assault characters by siphoning off their ammo or something like that. We wouldn't be calling assault characters greedy for resisting this change.

Also, of course people pick the suit for an alternative combat setup. Are you actually implying that is wrong? May as well criticize any logi that that takes advantage of their own equipment or runs as assault. Or heavies that snipe. Scouts are not rewarded for helping their team. Logis get thousands of WP for reviving, restocking, healing, etc. Assault characters get the most kills. Heavies are well equipped to storm objectives. Nothing about playing the "scout role" yields the player any bonus WP or advantage other than the small stealth advantage helping them sneak around. If anything squad vision would be like running a scanner pre-1.6 but without the advantage of being able to kill the enemies you scan yourself like a logi/assault suit can.

This, of course, begs the following questions:

1. What completely selfless, team-helping role are you fulfilling on the battle field?
2. Why is that choice superior to scout suits wanting to do more interesting things than skulking around telling all the big boys where the meanies are?
3. Why are you surprised that people are pursuing combat roles in a combat game?

Bast*rds? Absolutely.
Selfish? Hmmm ...

Scout stalks and closes the gap on unsuspecting prey.
EZ-Mode AR fires over Scout's shoulder, from behind cover 50 meters away.
Sneak attack foiled; glory stolen from Scout ... who cares ... its his job to spot the red-dots, not to kill them.
And if the hostile turns around and kills the Scout ... who cares ... its the Scout's fault if he gets spotted.

Selfish safely describes why AR-514 keeps proposing this change under guise of a "buff" for Scouts. Poonmunch is an exception; he was actually trying to help. If you want all Scouts to be perform a Recon role, then give us two equipment slots. We'll all run Active Scanners (promise).


Absolutely. CCP does not use the phrase "Recon Drone" in describing the Scout; rather, they chose to label us Assassin. We hope to perform this role with greater odds of success and survival if/when CCP gets around to a true Scout buff.

1. In skirmish I'm assuming you do a lot of hacking for the team? Something that helps the team though no doubt. The fact that running from point to point hacking gives you 1,000-2,000 WP per match doesn't mean anything to you. I'd say you're closer to 1/3 and only if you really just run scanners as a scout. Otherwise you're not doing much anyone can't do themselves in ambush.
2. How? Explain that. Because profile dampening helps you sneak up on people or snipe and the melee bonus helps you assassinate. If you mean the scan radius bonus on the GalScout then you must be joking. How often do you scan someone within the smallest circle on the radar that a teammate can't also see? Scanners are very costly and scouts have very low CPU/PG so I really don't see why you think the role you're referring to was even considered when designing the Scout suit.
3. I refer you to bullet point 2 for the intended role counterargument. Entitlement? Are you kidding? Everyone has the same level of entitlement in this game to do whatever they want to with whatever suit they want to. Scout suit users that never touch a scanner have no one to answer to just like logi users that never run reppers/needles.

1) The first is ours to control, the second is not.
2) Agreed. It's all about calculating risk and playing smart.
3) Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of us employ flanking tactics.
4) You're right, but the point remains.
5) Fair enough, but CCP could change the suit description if they thought it conveyed falsity.
6) \o/
7) Pardon my defensive posture; there've been quite a few bad "buff" ideas lately.

Dude your joking right?
Please explain how me sharing what I see benifits me?
Do I get points for this? Do you get points for this? Yes , +50+50 for spooking my targets an getting me dead.
This would make nova knifing impossible!
I have 21 million sp in a scout, I invested in all electronic skills and proto scanner, this scanner is your shared vision, my electronics skills are mine, not yours to mooch from!
You wanna help scouts then share your vision with us so we don't have to scan in un safe areas, that would benifit us.
1.5 scanners and wp will be insane so you don't need our vision, we need yours so our equipment slots can be used for more valuable things like uplinks and remotes to leave you a spot to spawn so we have reinforcements, so we're not taking on three mercs alone, and yes that is why we need to be light fast assaults because we are expected to get a spot solo!

So people saying we're not for killing and were only for recon are a friggen joke! You have any idea what a scouts role in pc is?
Keep 6 mercs chasing you so your team can use the uplink you placed to take the objectiv you made a full squad chase you from. An I'm sorry but my stamina does actually run out an I'm not faster than 6 op duv AR'S!

So yeah, your theory helps no one, why don't you put sp in something other than your gun, an spend your own millions of sp on ewar instead of trying to use ours an make us your bait, so why don't you quit being greedy an give us your vision!

Point 2: Ok. Then, as an assault, you're only allowed to kill people and blow stuff up. No healing, reviving, hacking or anything else that isn't a display of direct aggression towards the enemy. Likewise, as a logi, you're only allowed to distribute equipment and ferry people around. Ie. perform logistics. Strictly no killing.

Yes, why? Have I misrepresented your arguments?

Also, have you heard of evasiveness? You still haven't answered my question about who decided that the scout has one exact role to fulfill; a role that strangely coincides with what you think a scout should do.

I have read everything up to this point so far and I have yet to find anything written by you in response to someone's argument/counterargument that I feel properly addresses their criticisms of your points or doesn't just avoid confronting them.

1. How does any argument I make assume that? The only assumption in that post is an open one about your tactics in skirmish. The only reference to scouts in that bullet was that they don't identify enemies any better than any other class unless they use an active scanner. I'm starting to think you're just trolling me with your logic.
2. Now i'm positive you're trolling me. I revert back to my "chef" suit argument for this. The name of the suit means nothing if the makers did not give it "scout-like" attributes. By your logic if they renamed the heavy suit "scout" then people using them as they are now would be wrong to do so because it wasn't "intended" to be used that way.
3. Yes they do. Hahaha. If I run a heavy suit, I can use it however I want. Everyone has that right. If you can fit it, you can use it. Heavies not having equipment slots does not limit people to how they can run the suit. It doesn't mean they can't be a support character if that's what the user wants to do. It doesn't mean they can't be a scout if that's what they want it to. The reason people don't is because they have poor scout attributes. The irony here is that you refuse to believe that scout suits have bad scout attributes because they have "scout" in the name while completely ignoring the reality of the suit itself. It's also funny that you're the one in favor of tailoring the suit to your vision of the intended role. I'm not trying to get any changes done to the suit, as you can see I'm oppose to the change.

Bad for you if you're trying to participate in a discussion among peers.

Haha more productive than "see my other post" as if it somehow contains some applicable counterarguments.

2. Straw-man argument.

Nooo - he's pointing out that neither you nor anyone else should make narrow assumptions about how the users of a particular dropsuit should play purely based on the name of that dropsuit.

So, either you're failing to understand what he was writing, or you're misrepresenting his opinion on purpose and arguing against the opinion you're claiming he has (ie. making a strawman argument).

Ahh I should've read the rest of the comments before giving up with you; I can't let this one go.

First of all, nice dodge. You didn't respond to anything he said but instead just reasserted another position. There is no main distinction between our arguments because they are opposite. They're not the same with a "main distinction" making them different. You're in favor of a change to the current suit setup that would negatively effect an extremely common (arguably the only effective) way to run the suit. Before you disagree with this, take into account the many scout users that have agreed that this is not a positive change to the suit because it it detrimental to their current strategy. So while I and many other scouts are opposed to this not yet implemented change, you are for it. Who then is trying to limit the ways that a suit can be used? Don't pretend like me being opposed to something that isn't currently in the game somehow means that I'm saying "the suit can't be used this way" when it's not even possible to run it that way.

You're ignoring the fact that this change would change the way the suit could be used and not just adding to it a defined role. It destroys more roles than it adds. It turns this suit into an active scanner at best. This is plenty of reason for objection. This suit is hardly usable as is and would make it even more worthless than it is now if it couldn't be used in the one way people have made it effective. I'm ok with the suggestion to give them marking capabilities as previously stated somewhere above (I apologize, I can't remember who suggested it). This makes the suit have an extra ability that is "scout-like" without destroying the current play styles people use. The key difference here is that it makes the suit good for scouting without making it an active scanner. Saying my basis for objection is just because I don't use the suit for scouting is just ridiculous and no one else reading these posts could possibly agree.

The CalLogi analogy is invalid because CalLogis took advantage of existing exploits to become OP. CCP then nerfed them. That's what happened. There wasn't an effort to make them more Logi-like. It was simply to make them less powerful in every way. People who ran pure Logi roles with the suit were also nerfed. Comparing the objection of those exploiting the CalLogi suits because they were not able to run them as OP assault suits to the objection to a suggestion that is meant to "buff" the current scout suit because it really nerfs it in more ways than it buffs is incredibly absurd. You're just trying to draw a connection between people agreeing with the CalLogi nerd and people agreeing with the shared vision because it's so easy to agree to nerf something obviously OP when really the two situations are nothing alike.

My points started simple but your inability to understand them or realize your own logical fallacies required me to expand on the basics and individual arguments. It's difficult to by concise when the person you're arguing with leaves issues open/misdirects the conversion/builds and army of straw men. Being too lazy to read my responses to your claims, labeling them as rants, and then somehow dismissing them tells me that you have no way to refute what I or anyone else is saying.

You're answering me now. You answered me before. Our back and forth posts probably make up most of this thread. If you can't address any points in the posts or can't refute them then just let me know.

These are responses, not answers. That's another one of those distinctions you keep missing.

If you're seeing a distinction between the "answers" you've given everyone else and the "responses" you've been handing out then I think you've missed the distinction between "refute" and "answer".

Didn't think so considering my post was a conditional statement hence the "if" and so I'm not assuming the hypothesis to be true as would be needed to be begging the question.

Nuh uh