Totally agreed and as such I will reiterate here yet again, just so it is in another place on the forums, that I have actively tested the notion that deployed equipment creates substantive lag and have been unable to reproduce the effect during my tests.
Further I have encountered my most sever cases of lag (in Pubs/FW) during games with hardly any (or even no) equipment present on field prior to/during the onset of lag.
In PC matches I have encountered intense lag in situations both with and without substantial deployed equipment present and have seen no meaningful trend or corollary within that context.

It could be that for some reason my particular playstation 3 is just immune to the purported lag caused by deployed equipment, but that is highly implausible.

0.02 ISK
Cross

So now that we are solidifying some ideas, we need to get some input from a dev once a complete (notionally) set of proposals is made. 37 pages of discussion, we should have some pretty solid ideas, and judging from the spreadsheets Cross and others have worked so hard on, I think we need to hear what Rattati thinks of these ideas.

Both Rattati and LogiBro have been linked this thread as well as each iteration of the proposals as the discussion has gone on.
Currently I am awaiting word on some of the tech feasibility of these ideas which may further focus our discussion if certain options are taken off the table after that information comes back (if we can't do a thing, we can focus elsewhere).

Rest assured I will continue to keep CCP in the loop. When the time comes for a full on hotfix proposal to be made and discussed I'm sure CCP Rattati will create an Echo (or Foxtrot) thread for that. Until then we have this one

Cheers,
Cross

Updating my vote from Method 2, to Method 2b. The big 4 should be best in a Logi's hands. Also, thoughts on swapping the Min Logi's Shield and Armor HP values? 160 Shield, 120 Armor? Stats would align more closely with the other Min suits.

Seems sensible to me on first blush, anyone have reasons to raise why moderating the Min Logi profile to fit with the rest of the Min suits would be a poor change?

Seems sensible to me on first blush, anyone have reasons to raise why moderating the Min Logi profile to fit with the rest of the Min suits would be a poor change?

Lore wise, minmatar are dual tankers. Not in the sense of they use shields and armor at the same time, but rather that some ships are meant to use shield, and others are meant to use armor. In Dust, I would say suits designed for front line combat (assault, sentinel) should benarmor tankers, and those meant for other roles (scout) should be shield based. MinLogi, depending on how we intend it to be used (in the thick of battle, or in the rear) and should base its shields/armor off that.

The repair tool has several design innovations, the most surprising probably being the incorporation of Amarr focusing crystal technology. Beyond that, the device also makes use of an advanced K7 nano static co-processor on par with Caldari planet side missile tracking systems and a 55x5 reverse current power cell configuration rarely used beyond self-sustaining Gallente drone units. The result is an elegant tool combining technology from several very different design philosophies.

This is the most balance I've seen in a while from this game but there's no reason to stop now.

This thread will be about the ways we can bring Logistics suits up to par and because I know we all hate long, bombastic, pompous speech I'll keep this post short, simple and to the point. Like any Red Blooded Gallente would.



Slot Layout Adjustment:

Logistics need to have the same slot layouts though each tier as their Assault Counterpart. Logistics suits currently have an odd slot layout that makes most Standard Logistics useless and disproportionate to higher progression.

____________________

Equipment and Modules:

Besides the fact that Codebreakers need to be in highslots there's no reason they should take up the amount of PG that they do, they shouldn't take PG in the first place just like the Precision Modules, it just doesn't make sense and deters fitting modules of the like and just using it for more HP. Especially when a complex codebreaker cost more resources than some of your Complex Armor repairs and plates. It's just bad design.

Active Scanners:

There needs to be more variants of active scanners. Some of them offer trivial bonuses to them from the basic variant so I propose Active Scanners come in three base types:
One that scans a long range but short scan angle
one that has a wide angle but short range
and one that's in between.

With all the variants that would be within each one of course.

There also needs to be more WP earned from having a squadmate kill a target you've scanned.


Overall Logistics Bonus to all Equipment respectively:

There needs to be more incentive to use equipment on Logistics suits on not be stuck with just one bonus. That's bland and does not separate you from the other classes that could easily do the same.

I recommend a bonus for all equipment when using Logistics. Not the same exact bonus but it would be based off the races relation with said equipment.

Example A: Caldari would get a bonus to repair tool range whilst Gallente get a Bonus to Repair tool amount. Meanwhile Amarr still gets a bonus to the repair tool but due to the nature of the repair tool, it's going to have the least effective bonus to the Repair tool going towards repair rate. Of course Minmatar gets the best bonus to the Repair tool for obvious reasons.

Example B: Amarr gets a bonus to Nanohive Nanite amount and repair Rate per level whilst Minmatar get a bonus to Ammo Resupply Rate and Nanite Amount per level. The gallente would get a small bonus to Repair amount per level and that's it and of course the Caldari would get the best bonus to the Nanohive overall.

I could go more into detail with which suit should get which bonus but that's a conversation for a different day...if this even happens at all so I will be moving on. I Hope that was easy to understand.
_____________________

Base Logistics Stats:

Innate Logistics Repair rates need to be reintroduced at a base of 1hp/s yes it's not much but it means a lot for Logistics shield suits that don't want to waste a low for a basic reactive plate.

Either Faster Movement and Walking Speed or more Health:

Logistics should have some drawbacks when it comes to speed and health but right now I think it's a little bit much to have both stats lowered.

I know it would take more work so it probably wouldn't be welcomed but I'd like it if the Amarr and Caldari Logistics got a small Armor and shield buff respectively while Gallente and Minmatar received the speed buff.


Thank you for your time and hopefully constructive feedback follows. o7

... if under the current status of the game those support needs can be readily met without the presence of a logistics frame in squad what incentives can make said frame of adequate value to field?

Cross,
Any chance of getting price reductions on equipment?
with the increase of damage by almost all weapons how about an equal repair tool increase?

Cool, I was wondering where he was since he so clearly made his passion obvious and, really, his "raising of the alarm" regarding the inital proposed speed nerfs was the wake-up (for me at least) that initiated the thread awareness. Its just weird he's silent, but w/e, Life Happens.

I do see a valid role in scouts placing uplinks. I see a valid role in ALL suits placing uplinks. But, as a specialty? As the deployment first pick? Thats where I see an issue. Send a scout to recon/clear. Send a Logi to link. OR if the Scout is linking, yeah, its a slow link he'll have to cover until the Logi spawns and can fully utilize the locale.


Passive scans aren't wallhacks, bro. Not even close. They are absolutley dependent on the scanning players' distance, not just for the scan but for the reception too. When I stack my Amps up, I'm only expanding my circle of detection. My heavy, next to me, he'll see what I detect on his tacnet because positionally our tacnets overlap. Our Scout, running our flank 40 meters out, does not see what I detect because he's too far away. If I'm separated from my squad, only I see what I detect, until I'm close enough for the net to overlap again, then it's shared.

Also, don't forget that passive detection is also limited by the db profile of the scanning suit, PrecEnh mods drop the detection % from the suits base, which was why passive stacks work OK (just ok too, not great) with my Scout or Logi but suck on my Commando since the Commando frame initial profile base is too high to make PrecEnh worthwhile relative to 99% of the other battlefield circumstances.

@el OPERATOR, before I dig too deeply into your feedback, let me make sure that you have read Iteration 2 of the document, because some changes were made and from the sounds of your post you may have been reading doc 1 or you may think the changes were in the wrong direction/not far enough and I would rather know for sure rather than assume.

Cheers,
Cross

Speed nerfs? What speed nerfs? Or are we talking way back in the day?
The proposed speed nerfs that were a part of the HFDelta preliminary stat release. " Back in the day" like 2 months ago.


There's no real intent to touch high or low slot mods within this proposal, just to be clear.
That having been said, since you mentioned both PC and Active Scans, how often do you have a dedicated GalLogi on the ground running active scans throughout an full PC match? I know differing players and corps play differently so an additional angle of input is of interest to me.

@el OPERATOR, before I dig too deeply into your feedback, let me make sure that you have read Iteration 2 of the document, because some changes were made and from the sounds of your post you may have been reading doc 1 or you may think the changes were in the wrong direction/not far enough and I would rather know for sure rather than assume.

Cheers,
Cross

We will have to agree to disagree about the wall hacks. Funkmaster Whale made a nice thread about it a month or two ago. The argument on the current form of passive scans is this:

Scenario 1: You can see the opponent as a dot on your radar when your precision beats theirs = ewar

Scenario 2: Also EWAR You can see:
- the opponent on your radar when your precision beats theirs

- the opponent on your radar when someone else's precision beats theirs, even if yours does not
So long as you are squadded together AND your radar overlaps with your teammates

- the opponent when they are on someone else's radar, even if out of range of your own
I'm going to assume you mean the chevron, which without a range indicator is useless. If you mean on the radar, reference the overlap element^

- which way they are facing, in real time
You get this for anyone on tacnet, has nothing to do w/"sharing"

- the opponent right in front of your eyes, without having to look at your radar, just right there where you can put a crosshair on them and everything as they turn the corner...
Dude. If they're that close, thats not wallhax. Thats EWAR. Get Some, its, like, the future and stuff...

= lolnothax

We will have to agree to disagree about the wall hacks. Funkmaster Whale made a nice thread about it a month or two ago. The argument on the current form of passive scans is this:

Scenario 1: You can see the opponent as a dot on your radar when your precision beats theirs = ewar

Scenario 2: You can see:
- the opponent on your radar when your precision beats theirs
- the opponent on your radar when someone else's precision beats theirs, even if yours does not
- the opponent when they are on someone else's radar, even if out of range of your own
- which way they are facing, in real time
- the opponent right in front of your eyes, without having to look at your radar, just right there where you can put a crosshair on them and everything as they turn the corner...

= lolwallhax

[Hate to chime in after saying I wouldn't, but this is a tangent ]

I agree with John's assessment; scans are too good in their present form.

Technically, Shared Squad Passives aren't supposed to exist. They were disabled in Uprising 1.4 (see patch notes) yet here we are, still sharing squad passives. Rattati recognized the issue and looked into it, but he later reported that the situation proved more involved than he'd expected. We took his report to mean that disabling shared squad sight would require a client-side update.

Just in case we get a client-side update, EWAR tweaks were spitballed in the Barbershop; one of the ideas seems to address a few of John's concerns above ... the concept is as follows:

* Shared Passives Disabled
* If Profile beats Precision, target's position in concealed (presently observed)
* If Precision beats or equals Profile, target's position only is revealed
* If Precision substantially beats Profile, target's position and orientation are revealed
* If Active Scanner beats Profile, target's position and orientation are revealed to squad (presently observed)

Good stuff, right? You wouldn't believe the source :-)

---

100% agree. If the statistics indicate that Scouts are outshining Assaults on the frontline, then adjustments should be made. Adjustment approaches differ, depending primarily upon which Scouts (and gear configs) are causing the problems.