|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
126
   |
Posted - 2014.08.12 16:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Primarily a Min logi, but run Cal or Amarr if hives or uplinks are needed more than reps.
The repair tool
The more I think about logi squishiness, the more I think the solution is adding a self-repair function to the repair tool. When a logi hits their aim down sights button with the repair tool equipped, it should repair their own armor, perhaps at a reduced repair rate. When a target's armor is at full value, the repair tool should reduce the shield repair delay.
Please note, a logi's ability to tank damage would improve, but using this improvement would necessitate equipping the rep tool, instead of a primary or secondary weapon, improving a logi's tank, without directly recreating the "slayer logi" problem.
If logis with repair tools that could self-repair the logi were at all OP, a very modest range nerf (starting around 5%) for whatever primary and secondary weapon a logi carries should reign in any slayer logis, without completely gutting their ability to defend themselves.
War Points
I'd like to see war points earned for repairing other people's armor drop from +25 per tick down to +22. A very modest drop. I'd like to see war points for scanned targets killed rise from +15 to +20.
A good match where I do lots of repairing might still put me at the top of the WP list, but not by the slightly ridiculous margin I sometimes see. I'm not contributing more to the team than the guys getting 40+ kills, just because I'm following them around repping them. When I team up with a heavy like that, and he leads the match for kills, and I'm repping him; we should be close to a tie for WP earned. If I also manage my time well enough to do other support work (nanohives, uplinks, needling people) I should be able to make it to the top of the WP list. Doing so pretty regularly by a margin of more than 1k, suggests to me that I might be getting a little too many WP for reps. I should be encouraged to play a logi, without discouraging the slayers I'm supporting. When I have a mediocre game, I shouldn't still outscore them on WP easily.
the Needle
Injecting people shouldn't be this hard for logis or the people getting griefed by bad logis. Constructive criticism is abundant on this subject; the problem seems to be CCP not having the resources to fix it. I'd love to learn whether there is something the player base can do to help. I think we can reasonably expect minor tweaks, like to the numbers suggested above. I don't expect to see any added rep tool functionality before Legion; but I'd love for there to be a process in place, like a test server, like a somewhat open source environment where players can present mods/solutions to CCP. The Eve player base is weirdly amazing in some ways that CCP hasn't fully tapped. The nanite injector is perhaps the best example of the kind of persistent failure Legion's development process should be shaped to avoid. I don't know, but suspect this is a problem that's easily solved once we get away from the PS3. One of the really good signs that CCP hasn't screwed up Legion, will be if it releases with a properly functional injector, with minimap and flags for people who actually need a rez (no ghosts), and a process to let rezed people accept or reject the rez.
Different people value different things, but this kind of basic functionality is wildly more important to me than the aesthetics of various racial suits or lore.
Thanks for your attention to this stuff, Cross. Polling the players, so you can hash out what to emphasize when expressing the community's concerns to CCP, so they can allocate their limited resources well, is important. |
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
128
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 15:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
I pretty nearly never run a Gal logi. In the contest between the best stealthy scout fits and the best possible active scanner fits, is my impression correct that currently the scouts win as far as being able to fit to be undetectable?
If so, that absolutely should be reversed. The very best fit active scanners, who get lucky or good enough to happen to scan in the right direction at the right moment, should be able to pick up the stealthiest scouts.
If the Gal logi got a bonus to active scan precision good enough to achieve this, the SP and cost of running a proto gal logi might actually be worth it. |
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
128
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote:I pretty nearly never run a Gal logi. In the contest between the best stealthy scout fits and the best possible active scanner fits, is my impression correct that currently the scouts win as far as being able to fit to be undetectable?
If so, that absolutely should be reversed. The very best fit active scanners, who get lucky or good enough to happen to scan in the right direction at the right moment, should be able to pick up the stealthiest scouts.
If the Gal logi got a bonus to active scan precision good enough to achieve this, the SP and cost of running a proto gal logi might actually be worth it. Yes, you are correct, in the contest between stealth and scans at their highest level stealth wins. I floated an idea past a CPM candidate at one point about vehicle scanners being tweaked so that they, at least, could detect those super low profile scouts but she was very very adamant about ANY scanning of scouts making them "useless" (wtf?!??!) and from the context of the convo I got the distinct impression that sentiment was largely that of the current scouting community and previous CPM. She was even worse about the topic of scouts losing that 2nd equipment slot.
Thank you. I don't always keep up to date on the latest changes.
My concern for scanning can be restated as a request for a module much like the precision enhancer, but affecting active scans, and powerful enough to induce an arms race between logis and scouts (similar to the one we have currently among scouts for passive scan fits with with enough precision enhancers or dampers to detect or hide from each other.)
This proposed ACTIVE precision enhancer would also cause the scanning logi to light up like a Christmas tree on enemy scans. Fitting two Active precision enhancers would be required to pick up a scout with a single damper, i.e. the arms race where both logis and scouts sacrifice tanking modules to detect or avoid each other. The end game of that arms race is the stealthiest race's proto scout running the maximum dampers he can run, barely being detected by the best detecting race's proto logi, fitting all his high slots with active precision enhancers, and running a proto active scanner with the narrowest angle, shortest range, and shortest duration.
I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue against that balance. The best detecting logi would still probably cost 3x the stealthiest scout, all for a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of happening to scan in the right direction at the right moment to catch a stealthy scout.
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
131
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Meee One wrote:They accel at assaulting..
I apologize for displaying my pet peeve and/or playing the grammar policeman, but...
People who excel at something are excellent at it. Some cars accelerate quickly, but nothing "accels" because that isn't a word.
Back on topic:
As much as I would love to see a self repair function added to the repair tool, or a reduction in equipment costs, so logis aren't a greater burden on our wallets than running vehicles, the single greatest boon to my running a logi, would be a mild nerf to the decloak delay. Having almost no chance to dodge a scout's second shot, is a higher priority fix in my book, than any direct changes to the logi role.
Short of fixing that though, improving the precision of all the active scanners, so we have a chance of scanning damped, cloaked scouts would be a welcome stop-gap measure.
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
131
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 14:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Meee One wrote:Would it be possible to have the missing sidearm on 3/4ths of the logistics be an equipment slot?
Weapon swap would switch to it.
It would give ADV logistics 4 equipment,and Pro 5.
Cpu/Pg adjustments would need to be made of course.
That would be awesome. Even without adding a slot, or tweaking cpu/pg, just making the left or right most equipment slot alternate with our primary weapon when we hit the weapon switch button, would be wonderful.
Unfortunately, I imagine it would require a client side patch. But if that's doable, or a function that could be included in Legion, I entirely support that proposal.
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
133
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 17:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Booby Tuesdays wrote:I may be in the minority here, but I have no desire to have a bonus to RE's, and am still confused why they are considered equipment when you unlock them with grenades...
I agree. I really like method 3's emphasis on every race's logis being really good with a repair tool. I love the degree to which each race maintains a unique advantage, that makes my protoing out each race's logi feel less wasteful. I'm not enthused about the RE bonus for the Minmatar, though.
Let me proposed a Method 3 modification: replacing the Minmatar RE bonus with a bonus to Kin cat effectiveness, the goal being that a Minmatar logi willing to spend most or all of his low slots on Kin cats, should be fast enough to keep up with a squad of scouts, unless they're all running kin cats too. This would also present an interesting counter to the Minmatar racial enemy, Amarr logi uplink bonus (although this could also be viewed as a downside, usurping the Amarr uplink logi bonus, much the same way scouts generally are better uplink deployers than Amarr logis).
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
156
|
Posted - 2014.11.15 17:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vitantur Nothus wrote:
Will bet Cross 1M Isk that Logi scan range will be buffed to 18-20m (max range 80-90m) and scan precision buffed to 42 dB (max precision 20dB). My money's on you guys becoming better Hunters while Assaults become better Hiders. Would be really neat to see Logi passives forcing Scouts to run damps.
This would be awesome. Particularly if precision enhancing mods affected both passive and active scans. This would give me a viable alternative to brick tanking.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
159
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 00:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Meee One wrote:
And it wouldn't become FOTM,because only killing suits become FOTM.
You'ld see who the real logibros are,because most would switch to it.
If logis are fast enough to team up with scouts, what's the counter? Right now you can counter heavy/logi pairing by using their relative lack of mobility to either win the objective hacking race or engage at a range chosen by the scouts/assaults. (Leaving aside the lack of entry/exit delay for LAVs that excessively mitigates this heavy's weakness, since it might actually be easier to kill a logi/hvy pair when they're in a LAV.)
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
214
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 16:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:Here is the big logical issue / disconnect I see personally.
Can I make more WP in my Logi suit than my assault or heavy? Yes.
Can I break even ISK wise in my Logi suit even half as often as my assault or heavy? No.
Should Logi WP be lowered thus deepening the current problem of overly burdensome role cost? I do not think so.
The above is made worse still by the fact that I am a pretty solid Logi, and only a mediocre slayer so that I am more able to go ISK positive playing slayer than logi is a sign things are really not correctly calibrated.
I agree and am largely in the same boat. I support dropping the WP reward per rep tick very modestly, from 25 down to 22 or 23, and cutting the cost of equipment massively, halving the cost of equipment across the board.
That would shave 40-50k? isk expense from some proto fits and drop the WP logis earn a little bit, without making it ridiculously hard for a logi to ever top the WP list. Is there a downside? Cheaper equipment is unlikely to result in more equipment spam now that bandwidth is implemented. It will primarily reduce the degree to which running a logi is almost guaranteed to cost isk instead of making it.
The only reason I can think of to keep equipment costs as high as they are currently, is to maintain the logi role as essentially a luxury. Newbs, the poor, and players without friendly support need not apply. I kind of get that attitude toward pilots, but not a role primarily dedicated to infantry support.
Its not a huge problem, logis making WP more easily than others, but taking small steps in the right direction seems reasonable.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
216
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 01:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
Booby Tuesdays wrote:I have a feeling that things would move so much faster if the Logis were based around Aurum... 
Don't jinx us!
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
|
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
224
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mister Goo wrote:Is this something that CCP / Rattati is looking at, or just something they hope posting here will pacify us. Right now I get the feeling that it is just a pacifying technique.
I dread a blue tag post that just says, "We're working on it. It will be implemented... Soon. TM"
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
247
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 15:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:I've offered some of the reasons why GalLogi scans seem broken from the Scout's perspective. Assault users will point out that there's no benefit to running damps with GalLogi scans in play. Three complex damps to beat team-wide, 200m scans? Not reasonable. Better off sticking with King HP (which is bad for build variety and bad for balance)
How does cost factor into that balance issue? Do you agree that whoever wins the EWAR competition for top spot, whether it the detectors or the hiders, the supreme EWAR position should be the more expensive option?
Because what I find unreasonable is that you can fit three stealthy scouts, each one damped enough to avoid my proto scans, and even if I miraculously killed all three, their combined isk loss would be less than if one of them kills me. That's not balanced either. I think you'll find a lot of resistance to the effectiveness of stealthy scouts disappears, if they actually have to pay for their mistakes. Losing a suit that's almost free, because you were detected by a suit that costs at least three times as much when fitted with proto equipment, IS balanced. If scanner logis cost 1/4th as much as they do, I'd concede your claim that GalLogi scans are OP. They aren't because of their expense and the cheapness of the multiple counters that obliterate them.
We all know my hypothetical above isn't realistic, because my logi is more likely to die than even a single one of those "paper thin" scouts.
Don't suggest anybody should win the EWAR competition without paying for it. There's nothing balanced about that. Each of my proto scanners costs more than a scout suit that can easily gank me.
Should logis an heavies have an incentive to fit damps too? Should we not show up on scouts' passives unless they've fit more precision than we've fit damps? I'd be up for an psuedo-EWAR-tiericide.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
250
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 01:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote:
Do you agree that whoever wins the EWAR competition for top spot, whether it the detectors or the hiders, the supreme EWAR position should be the more expensive option?
I don't and won't. To do so would require applying the same logic (isk cost = success) everywhere else and from what the HAV threads have produced in that direction....yeah, I'm a no.
No, it really doesn't require applying the same logic more broadly.
I'm not suggesting that isk cost should always equal success, just that there should be some reason for a huge disparity. Cost is one of many factors that can help (as opposed to being the sole determining factor) balance the elements of a game. One (of many) possible indicator of an imbalance can be a huge cost differential. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that you shouldn't be able to field an effective scout fitting that avoids my scans, for a fraction of the cost of one piece of scanning equipment, when that fit can also reliably gank me 9/10ths of the time. At the very least that circumstance should give us pause when Adipem suggests that GalLogi scans are OP. GalLogis are less survivable, more expensive, less lethal. How exactly is that OP?
I'm only suggesting that perhaps our being less survivable and less lethal would be a little less Under-Powered, if we weren't also wildly more expensive. That's really not as simple as, "more expensive should always win." There should be a reason for why a bargain is disproportionately effective. Why should stealth get to be the bargain instead of detection?
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
254
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 16:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote: GalLogis are less survivable, more expensive, less lethal. How exactly is that OP? ...Why should stealth get to be the bargain instead of detection? I don't know that this is a reasonable premise, Gyn Wallace. Stealth isn't getting a bargain as running around in a 400HP Scout Suit is not a low risk activity. It is certainly more risky than using an Active Scanner while embedded among friendlies.
Well let's examine the premise then, and be precise in our use of language. First, let's be sure of what we mean by "risk."
Are you taking a greater or lesser risk by running a suit that you can afford to die in ten times per match, while still making a profit, compared to my running a suit that puts me at a net isk loss if i die twice?
Even if you die 8 times (because you can afford to play very aggressively; not because of any inherent vulnerability when your eHP AND speed are taken into account), and I die 3 times, should we describe that as you as engaging in a "high risk" activity and me engaging in a "low risk" activity?
You're not being specific about whether you're risking death or isk loss. Our clones are free when we're earning isk in pubs. So long as you don't throw the match due to clone losses, or perhaps even if you do lose the match, you can easily finish weathier than when you started. What are you risking in your "high risk activity"? Risk of being detected, so I'm not as surprised when I get shotgunned in the face?
A Gal logi being aware that he's about to die in the next 5 seconds, instead of some more vague time in the future, doesn't make him OP.
Where you really seem to be disagreeing is with my claim that the scanning Gal Logi is less survivable. Does the 400HP scout actually have lower survivability than a scanning Gal Logi? With high-alpha weapons (REs, one-shot kill shotgunners, plasma cannons, forge guns, etc.) the disparity in eHP is irrelevant. Your speed tanking is very relevant. Your ability to chose whether to engage or disengage is relevant.
Do the scouts you know actually die more than the logis? If so, are they dying because they're vulnerable, or because they know their suit is so cheap that they can play extremely aggressively?
No, I don't believe your 400HP scout can reasonably be described as engaging in "high risk" activity, compared to a wildly more expensive logis, because its the cheapness of your suit that lets you play so aggressively, and hence die a fair amount, not any inherent weakness in your over all tank (ehp + speed). If the costs were reversed (if a cloak cost 150K isk, and logis could run for 30k) you'd almost never see scouts getting killed. If logis were cheap enough to run that aggressively, they'd die at least as often as scout currently die.
My lowest risk spawn of the game is my initial spawn in an uplink carrying scout suit (wildly superior to logis for initial uplinks and hacks). Its so cheap I can run it without caring if I get killed. If it cost as much as a logi, so that I minded throwing them away, it would be so much easier to stay alive in that suit compared to my regular logi fits. I routinely wind up getting more kills with it than my logi. I usually have to do something incredibly aggressive to get killed, so I can respawn and start supporting my heavies. In other words, I have to do something suicidal, instead of trying to stay alive to get killed in that scout suit. That's how much more survivable a scout suit is, compared to logis. You need specifically disadvantageous circumstances for the scout to become less survivable, like trying to keep a heavy repped in a scout suit, or defending a single objective in a way that doesn't use the scout's superior mobility.
Generally though, their relative survivability is not even close.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
255
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 18:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:@ Gyn Wallace
I agree with you that the role of Logi is disproportionately expensive.
Why are you assuming that Scouts run BPO / Basic gear? MinScout have no choice but to run a prototype suit (and a prototype cloak) to beat GalLogi scans. Should a MinScout lose 2-3 proto suits at ~120k per suit, he -- just like you -- will lose Isk that match.
In order for a Scout to earn warpoints, he must hack, engage/kill targets or use equipment. Earning WP via EQ is not the Scout's strong suit; if it were, we'd have have a role overlap issue with Logistics. The other two activities are high risk activities for a low-hitpoint unit. Stealth play has become far more risky since Falloff, and today's Scout is no where near as strong as the pre-nerf, overpowered 1.8 Scout.
If GalLogi scans were in balance with the pre-nerf / pre-Falloff 1.8 Scout, what are they in balance with now?
Let's not change gears before we get as close as we can to resolving the previous point. Are you conceding that despite their lower HP, scouts are more survivable than logis unless they choose to behave in the most aggressive play styles available to them?
Scouts can avoid enemy contact better than any other infantry, instead favoring running and hacking wherever the enemy is weakest. Scouts can chose long range weapons, like the plasma cannon or RR, and avoid any gun fight where they lack a range advantage. Scouts can run scanners too, if that's such a huge advantage. Only because most scouts run cheap fits (despite the Very rare protoscouts) do they die much from playing aggressively, not because they're inherently vulnerable when their speed and straffing are taken into account.
Do you disagree that its easier to kill a logi than to kill a scout that isn't being suicidal?
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
256
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote:
Do you disagree that its easier to kill a logi than to kill a scout that isn't being suicidal?
Yes, assuming both units are "doing it right", it is far harder to overrun a blob and kill the Logi at its nucleus than it is to spot and kill a Scout.
Whoa, before rushing ahead to how lucrative each class is for earning war points (where I'll be happy to make concessions about the logi's strength), let's make sure we've rationally wrapped up this survivability comparison.
Do you really want to compare logi vs. scout survivability in terms of "doing it right" where the logi uses some portion of his team mates as body guards, and the scout doesn't coordinate his defense and movements with his team mates?
Is that even a remotely fair way to assess each suits survivability? I understand assessing a heavy's survivability in terms of a lack of logi support (running reppers instead of plates), occasional logi support, or constant logi support. But if you're suggesting that logi survivability should be weighed in consideration of running with a tight squad that watches his back, then we need to similarly assess a scout's survivability running with an equal number of his team mates coordinating with him and watching his back.
In other words, in similarly coordinated squad of scouts and fast assaults, how exactly does a threat survive long enough to get close enough to kill your scout more often than a squaded-up logi gets killed?
Some of the most brutal fights I've ever been in were against coordinated scouts, constantly hitting from every direction, so there was never a safe direction to turn or take cover. Turning to shoot at one meant another could shotgun me in the back. If a logi "doing it right" has to play with a squad before you assess his survivability, shouldn't your scout's survivability be assessed in the same context of tight teamwork?
When tight squads run scouts, the effects are absolutely BRUTAL for the other team. They're every bit as effective as a tight squad of heavies and logis, particularly if they're out to win the hack race by dividing up, or consolidating against a single enemy sub-squad if the slower enemy squad splits up to cover multiple objectives.
"Doing it right" as a way of concealing the scout's superior survivability, because scouts are so survivable they don't need close squad support, is a sham of an argument.
Scouts can certainly die as much as logis, but that's entirely a consequence of choosing an aggressive... insanely aggressive play style, not an inherent vulnerability to the suit. The low hp is more than negated as a weakness by the insane speed, let alone adding stealth.
So if both the logi and the scout run with tight squads that watch your back, if they both have to "do it right" instead of only giving the logi the benefit of close squad support, do you still maintain that the logi is harder to kill?
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
256
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:Then GalLogi scans aren't OP (since they're counterable by their counter) and your entire premise in here on that subject is void.
!
Yeah, he never really explained how Gal Logi scans are OP. Just because they can detect scouts that aren't using the counter to active scanners (stacked damps), doesn't make Gal scans OP, at all.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
256
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote: Please note that I am not weighing risk in terms of Isk.
That's not reasonable. "Less lucrative for earning war points" should not be confused with "high risk" or "less survivable." That does not aid clarity to the discussion.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
257
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:54:00 -
[19] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:If it was a "reasonable" requirement then, it certainly is not now.
I believe it appropriate to lessen pressure on today's post-nerf, post-falloff MinScouts by 1 slot. ...
That said, adjustments to GalLogi active scans may prove in the end to be the better path. GalLogi scans aren't just "OP" against MinScouts; these scans also negate any/all value of running damps on any suit other the Scout. Thankfully, balance calls aren't mine to make.
Its nice to see that you're in a thread about buffing the weakest class in the game, arguing for buffing scouts that aren't under-powered, nerfing scans that aren't OP, AND buffing assaults... because assaults really need a buff right now...
So its really just the heavies that the scanner is supposed to pick up.. oh and other logis?
/Sarcasm.
Scans were not balanced when scouts were ridiculously OP. Scans lost then, scans still lose now. But you want scans to lose against assaults too?
I'm coming around to the opinion that you're really here to troll. The more I think about that survivability discussion, the more absurd your suggestion that scouts are higher risk or less survivable. Entire behaviors have arisen to protect expensive, vulnerable logis, while routine behaviors have similarly arisen around taking insane risks with the very robust scouts (despite their low HP). But instead of acknowledging that its the behaviors rather than anything inherent in the suits that has scouts and logis dying at any kind of similar frequency, you argued that "risk" isn't about isk loss.
You're obviously not stupid, Adipem, but its becoming increasingly difficult for me to engage with you as though you're arguing in good faith. That you can't acknowledge that aggressive scout behavior rather than their suits (except to the extent that the low cost of the suit incourages that behavior) is what makes them die as much as logis, is a giant road block to taking anything you write seriously. Logis simply do not have an effective play style that reduces their risk of net isk loss for a match as low as what scouts have available to them, even if the scouts is a soloist and the logi has a squad.
Even moderately skilled scouts, who decide to hunt me down, can almost guarantee that I'll go negative isk for a match, while they risk so little isk they can still easily go isk positive. There is no similar vulnerability for scouts. Scouts (right behind vehicle pilots) are among the lowest risk suits, unless your playstyle is insanely aggressive. The scout suit isn't particularly vulnerable; the playstyle some scouts prefer is.
I've ranted about this enough, so I'll close with one final point: The biggest coward in the game, Duna, jumps out of his tank when its about to blow, and runs back to his redline to call in another tank. He works hard to keep his deaths as low as possible. What suit does he prefer? Not an assault, not a heavy, not a commando, and certainly not a logi. He runs a scout, because ITS the most survivable and lowest risk suit in the game. He jumps out, cloaks and runs away. And routinely gets away.
That's not a vulnerable "high risk" suit. Its absurd, and frankly a little insulting to everyone's intelligence for you to suggest otherwise, just because some of the most aggressive players prefer using scout suits because they're so cheap while still being very lethal.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
260
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 23:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote:Its nice to see that you're in a thread about buffing the weakest class in the game, arguing for buffing scouts that aren't under-powered Select Category:DropsuitsCommandos are the weakest class in the game. If Logis are underpowered and underutilized, so are Scouts and Heavies.
Hilarious.
I like how your chart somehow shows that commandos are the weakest class in the game, but magically avoids showing that scouts are still OP, or at the very least still much stronger than logis. But yeah, keep arguing for nerfing scans so assaults can avoid being scanned too. As your chart shows, assaults and scouts need all thelp they can get. /Sarcasm.
Again, arguments that poor are an insult to your audience's intelligence. You're bringing me around though: I'm starting to think that nerfing scouts again might be more important than buffing logis. Look at how high they are on your chart! Lol.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
|
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
260
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 15:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:That isn't my chart. 
Is English your first language?
The possessive "your" doesn't only mean creation or ownership of something. The easiest example of this is "your country." In this context "your evidence" in support of your point, doesn't need to be created or owned by you.
"Your chart" the one YOU are citing as an authority to indicate that commandos are the weakest suit instead of logis, undermines every other argument you've made in this thread to avoid the idea that scouts are still OP compared to logis.
Its not true that logis are underpowered because of your chart. As Pokey's pointed out, its a very weak authority for making any conclusions about suit strength. But for you to cite it anyway, while it contradicts your other assertions about the relative strengths of logis and scouts, suggests that you really aren't here to argue in good faith.
You're making a sham argument. Instead of conceding when you're caught making terrible arguments, you change the subject, or make another different sham argument. That kind of "shotgun" (not a pun about shotgun scouts; but a broader description of a rhetorical tactics that avoids a single best argument, like a rifle bullet, in favor of many tiny bad arguments, like shot gun pellets) approach to a discussion invites people to have a low regard for your thoughts and opinions.
You can not be taken seriously until you concede what is obvious to anyone who isn't a scout/assault zealot: Logis are the weakest suit in the game. Gal Logi scans are not OP just because assaults can't beat them and scouts actually need to fit appropriately to beat them; that is balanced, not OP. And finally, when you make a bad argument, you need to be able to concede its weakness, or withdraw it entirely. Its that last failure that makes you look more and more trollish over time.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
260
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 16:02:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jebus McKing wrote:
- Another thing we might consider is switching Assault movement speed with Logi movement speed. This would make sense becasue of two reasons: 1. A suit that has less HP should probably be quicker than its counter part with more HP. 2. The job of the Logi involves running around a lot, so this would be a nice buff for Logis to become better at their job.
I appreciate that lots of logis would prefer the speed, I also see the merit in making logis the second slowest and tankiest suits, right behind heavies.
What about covering that range of speed/tank balance within the logi class? In other words, making the Amarr logi almost as slow and tanky as a heavy, and making the Minmatar logi almost as fast and lightly tanked as a scout?
In other words on the continuum of Tankiness and slowness:
Scouts -Min Logi - Cal Logi - Gal logi - Amar Logi - Heavies
with assaults somewhere in the middle? The flexibility of a plated and shield extended Amar logi approaching the eHP of a heavy and a kincat Min logi approaching the speed of a scout is appealing to me. I'm also fine with that kincat Min Logi being paper thin, and that Amar logi being as brutally slow as a heavy.
I've love to be able to keep up with a scout squad, or survive with a point defense Heavy squad, instead of being stuck in the middle or at either end of that continuum. I'd love to use that kincat min logi as my initial uplink deployer instead of a scout suit. I'd love to switch to that Amar logi, if I know I'm being deployed (and transported to the point) with a heavy.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
261
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
Pseudogenesis wrote: There's no reason to act all exclusionary and hostile over something as harmless as that.
I entirely agree. Hostility is unnecessary and irrelevant. However, calling a spade a spade is useful. Pointing out some of the severe flaws in some of the arguments presented is constructive. Noting shabby rhetorical tactics from people who don't really seem to have much interest in fixing Logis is useful.
There is nothing exclusionary about asking people contributing to this thread to keep signal/noise ratio relatively noise free, if it seems like what they're really here to do is recruit for their corporation or argue for scout/assault buffs. It is focused, not exclusionary, to ask that conversation to happen elsewhere.
I'd welcome constructive criticism towards any of the ideas for buffing Logis in thread. Less-than-constructive criticism that's really just advocacy for buffing scouts, is going to get pointed out for the BS it is. Its a testament to the politeness of most of the sort of people who run logis that you've seen more, "Please take that elsewhere" than "GTFO" responses to some ridiculously shabby arguments.
Do you agree that logi survivability needs a buff? If so, I'd like to read something constructive about what form it should take. If not, I'd like to read a reasonable argument why not.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
261
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
When thinking about the survivability and expense of running a logi, I just realized something that I haven't noticed being explicitly stated in this thread.
There are matches where I go isk positive, but they tend to be poor matches, i.e. stomps. If my team stomps, I hardly die, I hardly rep, but I still typically make isk. If my team gets stomped, its usually pretty apparent pretty early on that this will be a good match to use a weak and free (as an ongoing expense) apex logi suit. Still, isk positive.
Good fights though, the matches that keep me playing Dust, are almost always horrific isk losses. Really good fights where who won sometimes isn't even apparent until the vicotry/defeat screen shows up, those can easily cost more than a million isk loss, even if I got an awesome payout.
A big part of the why logis NEED a buff of some kind is because I almost never have a match that doesn't suffer from either poor match making or outrageous expense. The precise matches where it matter most to run good gear, shouldn't be a nearly guaranteed large isk loss. To a lesser extent, everybody suffers from the same problem. Its particularly nasty for vehicle pilots and logis.
Its particularly frustrating to have a months-long thread about it, when some portion of the fixes aren't development resource intensive. Coding a better revive system; I understand how that could take a long time. Fixing the stats and costs of logi suits; why in the world would that take as long as it has?
That delay doesn't indicate a lack of development resources. That indicates that CCP thinks there are enough people running logis, and bearing the costs of running logis, so that they just aren't a priority for getting fixed.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
275
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote: If so, would it not stand to reason that battlefields permascanned at 21dB might be to blame?
If people running assault suits start shifting to scout suits to avoid scans, that does not suggest that scans are too strong against assaults. It suggests that scans are too weak against scouts.
How unsurprising that you would get that backwards. Even if not explicitly advocating to nerf logi scans, you have a knack for framing an issue as though they're OP, even in circumstances that suggest that scans are really under-powered.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
279
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote: If so, would it not stand to reason that battlefields permascanned at 21dB might be to blame? If people running assault suits start shifting to scout suits to avoid scans, that does not suggest that scans are too strong against assaults. It suggests that scans are too weak against scouts. How unsurprising that you would get that backwards. Even if not explicitly advocating to nerf logi scans, you have a knack for framing an issue as though they're OP, even in circumstances that suggest that scans are really under-powered. Let's play this out...
Again with the distractions... The simple truth is that there is nothing OP about the most precise scans having a small chance of picking up the stealthiest scouts. For you to suggest that scans are OP in the current system, where the most precise scans have ZERO chance of picking up the stealthiest scouts, simply is not reasonable.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
Ready to Play
295
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Off topic for just a 'bit:
...
Reducing cooldown would very likely worsen today's problems with permascan. ...
This is the wrong place to complain about your invented "problem."
Again with the distractions... The simple truth is that there is nothing OP about the most precise scans having a small chance of picking up the stealthiest scouts. For you to suggest that scans are OP in the current system, where the most precise scans have ZERO chance of picking up the stealthiest scouts, simply is not reasonable.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
Ready to Play
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote:Again with the distractions... The simple truth is that there is nothing OP about the most precise scans having a small chance of picking up the stealthiest scouts. For you to suggest that scans are OP in the current system, where the most precise scans have ZERO chance of picking up the stealthiest scouts, simply is not reasonable.
... I don't waste my time making stuff up or "inventing problems", and I don't appreciate your implication that I would. ... Scans still need work.
Oh but you have invented a fake problem, the "permascan." I'm not implying that you're inventing problems. I'm being explicit.
Scans aren't OP. If they still need work, they need a buff, so at least one scanner model can detect the stealthiest scouts, briefly, in a narrow arc, at short range.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
Ready to Play
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:12:00 -
[29] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote: The low-risk, massive-reward 21dB scans pose the bigger balance problem; they should be the priority fix.
That sentence, in a nutshell, is why you read like a troll. You're being absurd. You have an option to fit for completely avoiding 21dB scans 100% of the time. Where's my option for a CHANCE to scan the stealthiest scouts before they one-shot-kill me?
That you would complain about assault suits failing to avoid scans shows that good game balance isn't your concern; buffing stealthy play styles is.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
Ready to Play
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:25:00 -
[30] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:If you don't think that permascan is real, change your battle server to Americas, queue up for an Ambush match and wait for your turn to be pubstomped by Nyain San.
You're nuts. In your head, you can't separate knowing where the enemy is and obliterating them. Guess what. The guys getting stomped by Nyain San, can and sometimes do scan Nyain San just as much, which is why your pointing to scans as the "problem" is entirely in your head. Or did you mean that Nyan San uses so many unscannable scouts that the people they're stomping can't see them coming, because none of their scanners can pick up the stealthiest scouts?
Contrary to your obsession with a fake problem, the real problem is that a logi can scan the enemy, see them coming, and be so ineffective when they arrive. The real problem is that EVEN WITH knowing where some the enemy is and the direction from which they're approaching, one class in particular is weaker than the others when the enemy arrives.
That's the priority fix that's needed. That's why your pretending that something as stupid as enabling assaults to duck scans is a higher priority, in this thread, is such a trollish thing to write.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
|
|
Gyn Wallace
Ready to Play
299
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote: Where's my option for a CHANCE to scan the stealthiest scouts before they one-shot-kill me? That Scout has to be within 2m to one shot you. You already have your chance. Now add a Myo and hop out of his range when he enters your 8m TacNet inner ring.
See the bold words "to scan" in my question? Ignoring them is why your response doesn't answer the question. The correct answer is: in the current system I have no chance to scan the stealthiest scouts at all. How unsurprising that you avoided answering the question and instead distracted from the weakness of current scans or the strength of stealthy play.
Adipem Nothi wrote:20dB recon scout passive scans ..
More irrelevant distractions... I get it. You wanted run the stealthiest and best detecting class. You lost your "I win" button. I'm sorry, but that's no excuse for making terrible arguments in the wrong thread.
I simply don't believe that you're dumb enough to have missed the phrase "to scan" in my question above, or that you were ignorant of the problem with stacking the best detection and stealth in one class. So why are you making such patently bad arguments here? In THIS thread?
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
Gyn Wallace
Ready to Play
301
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 01:28:00 -
[32] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Gyn Wallace wrote:You're nuts. In your head, you can't separate knowing where the enemy is and obliterating them. Guess what. The guys getting stomped by Nyain San, can and sometimes do scan Nyain San just as much, which is why your pointing to scans as the "problem" is entirely in your head. Or did you mean that Nyan San uses so many unscannable scouts that the people they're stomping can't see them coming, because none of their scanners can pick up the stealthiest scouts?
Contrary to your obsession with a fake problem, the real problem is that a logi can scan the enemy, see them coming, and be so ineffective when they arrive. The real problem is that EVEN WITH knowing where some the enemy is and the direction from which they're approaching, one class in particular is weaker than the others when the enemy arrives.
That's the priority fix that's needed. That's why your pretending that something as stupid as enabling assaults to duck scans is a higher priority, in this thread, is such a trollish thing to write.
So GalLogi ["permascan"] is fine because ...
Literally nothing you wrote was responsive to any part of my post that you quoted. Nothing.
The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
|
|
|
| |
|