DUST Search - CPM input request: Logistics & Support.

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

CPM input request: Logistics & Support.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1322	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:22:00 - [1021] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: Meee One wrote: I will admit triage hives seemed to have too many clusters... But having Pro level hive with less clusters than even a compact? Don't grenades take 12-24 clusters to refill? So,with this reduction i could refill 8 grenades,woo. And hybrids are bad enough as is,yet you want them to refill less? This seems like a good idea increasing carried amounts,but you're forgetting something. Logis are supposed to be equipment masters,and unless the equipment +carried is logistics exclusive imma say no. And logistics would require a class wide bonus to cluster amount to not completely destroy nanos effectiveness. Um The whole point here is to make it so that you can drop more equipment with less effectiveness per drop. This lets you use equipment more often while reducing the overall duration of equipment as to discourage spam. You'll be able to drop ammo for your team in 6 different places instead of just 3, or place uplinks in 12 different places instead of 3. However, equipment is still limited to 2 down at a time meaning that you can't just drop a hive (or 5) in an area and expect them to be there when you get back. The whole point is that you must constantly have this equipment on the suit for it to continue to be effective rather than dropping a ** ton of uplinks with 20 spawns on them each that will last forever. In combination with the new bandwidth proposal, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for people to spam equipment while still allowing dedicated logistics players to use tons of equipment. If that's not an insane amount of WIN-WIN to you then you have to be crazy or maybe you don't understand this proposal. You seem to be intentionally ignoring my reasoning. Let me make it easier for you. I don't want assaults or scouts to be able to carry as much. It further relegates logistics into the corner by removing the need for external support,forcing logistics to stick with heavies. I want more clusters for logistics because there will always be the one asshat that stands right on top of your hive spamming grenades with the sole purpose of using them up. Logistics should be the masters of equipment,they earn the right by being so terribly gimped. Other classes should need logistics for something,why not have that something be their equipment? Any positive change to equipment should be given through logistics exclusive bonuses. Any negative change to equipment should be negated by logistics exclusive bonuses. One main problem with logistics survivability is that no one sees them as valuable. But if assaults and scouts could only carry 2 hives while logistics can carry 6-7,it would add value. And logistics would be seen as a long-term winning asset worth protection. I'll be away for a few days after i post this,but i'll never change my view. Logistics should benefit exclusively,and other classes should benefit through** logistics. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 516	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:22:00 - [1022] - Quote I'm behind on this thread, been sidetracked elsewhere trying to keep us from getting ****** and scouts from getting even more stealthbuffs. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4653	Posted - 2014.11.20 22:48:00 - [1023] - Quote Meee One wrote: I-Shayz-I wrote: Meee One wrote: I will admit triage hives seemed to have too many clusters... But having Pro level hive with less clusters than even a compact? Don't grenades take 12-24 clusters to refill? So,with this reduction i could refill 8 grenades,woo. And hybrids are bad enough as is,yet you want them to refill less? This seems like a good idea increasing carried amounts,but you're forgetting something. Logis are supposed to be equipment masters,and unless the equipment +carried is logistics exclusive imma say no. And logistics would require a class wide bonus to cluster amount to not completely destroy nanos effectiveness. Um The whole point here is to make it so that you can drop more equipment with less effectiveness per drop. This lets you use equipment more often while reducing the overall duration of equipment as to discourage spam. You'll be able to drop ammo for your team in 6 different places instead of just 3, or place uplinks in 12 different places instead of 3. However, equipment is still limited to 2 down at a time meaning that you can't just drop a hive (or 5) in an area and expect them to be there when you get back. The whole point is that you must constantly have this equipment on the suit for it to continue to be effective rather than dropping a ** ton of uplinks with 20 spawns on them each that will last forever. In combination with the new bandwidth proposal, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for people to spam equipment while still allowing dedicated logistics players to use tons of equipment. If that's not an insane amount of WIN-WIN to you then you have to be crazy or maybe you don't understand this proposal. (1) Any positive change to equipment should be given through logistics exclusive bonuses. Any negative change to equipment should be negated by logistics exclusive bonuses. (2) One main problem with logistics survivability is that no one sees them as valuable. But if assaults and scouts could only carry 2 hives while logistics can carry 6-7,it would add value. And logistics would be seen as a long-term winning asset worth protection. -snip- I'll be away for a few days after i post this,but i'll never change my view. Logistics should benefit exclusively,and other classes should benefit through** logistics. @Meee 1) Do you not see that the BW thing is a logistics bonus? Its just tied to the suit, not he skill, which may not be the better option but it's still logi-exclusive: +50% more EQ per tier. 2) ADV scouts, with the BW proposal, will only be able to deploy 2 hives. Proto can use 3. So.... not sure what you are getting at there. @Shayz: I'm still not really coming around to the uplinks with only 5 spawns but you can carry a crapton of them thing. Instead of 5 spawns and carry 8, why not 10 spawns and you carry 4? Obviously the quantum uplinks with 25 spawns or whatever never get used, but why not a middle ground? I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
RedBleach LeSanglant Hellstorm Inc General Tso's Alliance 697	Posted - 2014.11.20 22:52:00 - [1024] - Quote As and additional note to my previous post, Scouts start with 2 EQ, their max. A logi should start with at least 1 more because theirs is the equipment role. As a sidenote, Cross. I know that you have been quite busy here and IRL. A few pages back you had said that you were reviewing what I had posted and would get back to me with your thoughts, no rush, just looking forward to it. Be well. The Logi Code. Creator, Believer, Follower Trust CROSS
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 519	Posted - 2014.11.20 23:04:00 - [1025] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. ANY tactical position creation, reinforcement, or use will be a major pain with tue BW mechanic, whether its a fallback, a forward, an advanced OR a flank. Positioning will be like checkers, one piece in one direction until opposed and defeated instead of like chess, multiple pieces with different board control capabilities acting in concert together to an ultimate end. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4654	Posted - 2014.11.20 23:22:00 - [1026] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. ANY tactical position creation, reinforcement, or use will be a major pain with the BW mechanic, whether its a fallback, a forward, an advanced OR a flank. Positioning will be like checkers, one piece in one direction until opposed and defeated instead of like chess, multiple pieces with different board control capabilities acting in concert together to an ultimate end. I was talking about the "more available links with less spawns." Arguably makes it harder than BW to make a fallback spot. I'd have to drop 3 in the same location to make it viable. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 520	Posted - 2014.11.21 00:02:00 - [1027] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. ANY tactical position creation, reinforcement, or use will be a major pain with the BW mechanic, whether its a fallback, a forward, an advanced OR a flank. Positioning will be like checkers, one piece in one direction until opposed and defeated instead of like chess, multiple pieces with different board control capabilities acting in concert together to an ultimate end. I was talking about the "more available links with less spawns." Arguably makes it harder than BW to make a fallback spot. I'd have to drop 3 in the same location to make it viable. Problem, "tactical godfather", is you're sounding like you want to create fallback positions while being pushed back so now you're concerned about spawn counts/speeds, whereas I'm concerned with creating fallback positions before ever having pushed forward in the first place so placement timing is my concern. Checkers vs. Chess. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4654	Posted - 2014.11.21 00:08:00 - [1028] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. ANY tactical position creation, reinforcement, or use will be a major pain with the BW mechanic, whether its a fallback, a forward, an advanced OR a flank. Positioning will be like checkers, one piece in one direction until opposed and defeated instead of like chess, multiple pieces with different board control capabilities acting in concert together to an ultimate end. I was talking about the "more available links with less spawns." Arguably makes it harder than BW to make a fallback spot. I'd have to drop 3 in the same location to make it viable. Problem, "tactical godfather", is you're sounding like you want to create fallback positions while being pushed back so now you're concerned about spawn counts/speeds, whereas I'm concerned with creating fallback positions before ever having pushed forward in the first place so placement timing is my concern. Checkers vs. Chess. Not even what I'm saying; also unsure how you could infer that from the statement. Overall I am questioning your reading comprehension at this point. Not trolling but serious. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 136	Posted - 2014.11.21 00:20:00 - [1029] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: @Shayz: I'm still not really coming around to the uplinks with only 5 spawns but you can carry a crapton of them thing. Instead of 5 spawns and carry 8, why not 10 spawns and you carry 4? Obviously the quantum uplinks with 25 spawns or whatever never get used, but why not a middle ground? I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. One thing to remember, however, is the interaction that the Amarr Logi skill bonuses have with links. So, at max skills, you'll go from 5 spawns/per link to 15 instead, a 300% increase. I actually pointed out how this could become potentially ridiculous here: myself wrote: Drop Uplink Analysis. So, Links. I think the biggest thing that jumps out at me is this: Why do we need sixty spawns worth of links? I mean, that's nearly four times as many players are on a team, and more than a third the total clone count of a Dom or Skimish match. It just seems ridiculously overkill. I mean, currently due to how link mechanics are structured, it sort of makes sense... but that has more to do with the fact that we're not carrying very many links in total. The expectation almost seems like a link is supposed to be destroyed or made irrelevant by changing battle conditions than to be completely expended. There's also the issue of how this change interacts with the Amarr Logi bonus. Currently, the referenced proto links have 20 spawns per link, with 3 carried. With the AmLogi bonus, this becomes 30 spawns per link, with 3 carried, for a total of 90 spawns. Using the proposed numbers of 5 spawns/link, 12 links carried... I arrive at a whopping one hundred eighty potential spawns. 180! That's more than ten times as many players per team, and is 20% more than the total clone count per team of any game mode! But even considering the potential ridiculosity, it does mean that, potentially, we could make Quantum-variant links a distinctive variation; fewer links carried, but more spawns per link- the net should actually be that the total spawns per fitted module favors the basic variant, while Quantum variant links have higher spawn count per link, with fewer carried. Expanding that to the Flux and Stable variants, Flux variants should have faster spawns per link, but fewer total links carried, while Stable links should have fewer total links carried and a slightly longer spawn delay than basic-variant links. To counterbalance the spawn time and total carried drawbacks of Stable-variant links, they should generally cost 60-75% the CPU/PG to fit compared to an equal-tiered link. As far as Gauged links, I'm honestly not sure what to do about those. Side note: Flux nanos need to be dropped like a flaming honey badger. They serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4656	Posted - 2014.11.21 01:10:00 - [1030] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: @Shayz: I'm still not really coming around to the uplinks with only 5 spawns but you can carry a crapton of them thing. Instead of 5 spawns and carry 8, why not 10 spawns and you carry 4? Obviously the quantum uplinks with 25 spawns or whatever never get used, but why not a middle ground? I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. One thing to remember, however, is the interaction that the Amarr Logi skill bonuses have with links. So, at max skills, you'll go from 5 spawns/per link to 15 instead, a 300% increase. I actually pointed out how this could become potentially ridiculous here: myself wrote: Drop Uplink Analysis. So, Links. I think the biggest thing that jumps out at me is this: Why do we need sixty spawns worth of links? I mean, that's nearly four times as many players are on a team, and more than a third the total clone count of a Dom or Skimish match. It just seems ridiculously overkill. I mean, currently due to how link mechanics are structured, it sort of makes sense... but that has more to do with the fact that we're not carrying very many links in total. The expectation almost seems like a link is supposed to be destroyed or made irrelevant by changing battle conditions than to be completely expended. There's also the issue of how this change interacts with the Amarr Logi bonus. Currently, the referenced proto links have 20 spawns per link, with 3 carried. With the AmLogi bonus, this becomes 30 spawns per link, with 3 carried, for a total of 90 spawns. Using the proposed numbers of 5 spawns/link, 12 links carried... I arrive at a whopping one hundred eighty potential spawns. 180! That's more than ten times as many players per team, and is 20% more than the total clone count per team of any game mode! But even considering the potential ridiculosity, it does mean that, potentially, we could make Quantum-variant links a distinctive variation; fewer links carried, but more spawns per link- the net should actually be that the total spawns per fitted module favors the basic variant, while Quantum variant links have higher spawn count per link, with fewer carried. Expanding that to the Flux and Stable variants, Flux variants should have faster spawns per link, but fewer total links carried, while Stable links should have fewer total links carried and a slightly longer spawn delay than basic-variant links. To counterbalance the spawn time and total carried drawbacks of Stable-variant links, they should generally cost 60-75% the CPU/PG to fit compared to an equal-tiered link. As far as Gauged links, I'm honestly not sure what to do about those. Side note: Flux nanos need to be dropped like a flaming honey badger. They serve no useful purpose whatsoever. That is pretty crazy. Quantums sticking around as the middle ground option between the current and what we have now sounds good. You could just get rid of gauged links, really, they wouldn't have much purpose with the proposed change. (The godfather of tactical logistics)

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 527	Posted - 2014.11.21 01:28:00 - [1031] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. ANY tactical position creation, reinforcement, or use will be a major pain with the BW mechanic, whether its a fallback, a forward, an advanced OR a flank. Positioning will be like checkers, one piece in one direction until opposed and defeated instead of like chess, multiple pieces with different board control capabilities acting in concert together to an ultimate end. I was talking about the "more available links with less spawns." Arguably makes it harder than BW to make a fallback spot. I'd have to drop 3 in the same location to make it viable. Problem, "tactical godfather", is you're sounding like you want to create fallback positions while being pushed back so now you're concerned about spawn counts/speeds, whereas I'm concerned with creating fallback positions before ever having pushed forward in the first place so placement timing is my concern. Checkers vs. Chess. Not even what I'm saying; also unsure how you could infer that from the statement. Overall, considering the last 24-48 hrs of posts I am questioning your reading comprehension at this point. Not trolling but serious. So, be clearer then in your statements. Every Logistical style that actively supplies a group AND establishes preemptive positioning is hurt by BW limits. That you can't, don't or won't see that tells me you rarely if at all are acting in this manner tactically, which really only leaves you either A) Reacting Logistically on the battlefield, not Dictating Logistically or B) Are just another ammo humper leashed to a heavy both of which explain your problem understanding my problem with BW. Not trolling, but serious as my ability to more than read whatever gets posted in here. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 137	Posted - 2014.11.21 02:36:00 - [1032] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: That is pretty crazy. Quantums sticking around as the middle ground option between the current and what we have now sounds good. You could just get rid of gauged links, really, they wouldn't have much purpose with the proposed change. Yeah, Gauged links as of now are interesting and useful, given that you can carry more links and especially the more links deployed benefit... but they end up not being especially useful under the equipment rebalance proposal that is part of the 3rd iteration in the OP. I'd also like to further bring to attention the tiering imbalance of Stable links- they have a STD and PRO variant, but not an ADV model. I believe this should be fixed, as it doesn't make much sense. It's a little like the issue with Scanners- there's a Flux scanner at STD and PRO, but not at ADV, while Stable scanners only exist at ADV level- no PRO variant to speak of. It'd also be nice if there was a STD variant, but I think that Stable scanners need more of a drawback than "it costs more ISK". Also, I'd like to comment on Shayz's equipment spreadsheet: I-Shayz-I wrote: Here ya go :P https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ytb13XWe3th0KUWFdNJD5NS_0Pqv5U8acUmhPxh6Ss/edit?usp=sharing Took me a few hours but this is the rough proposal I have for how equipment should be changed based on the feedback in this post and my own personal opinions. For the isk page I decided to standardize prices for equipment...again these are rough numbers not biased on how effective certain equipment are or what is used more. Part of me wanted to do this for FW items but I got about 30 minutes in and realized that until we have a standardized isk price for items it would be impossible to try and give each FW item a fair price. I'll start with the ISK pricing changes, as that's where my main issue lies, I think. Simply put, I think a lot of the pricing is too high. For the most part, I would argue that a single equipment mod should have an ISK cost that is approximately 20-25% that of an equal-tier light weapon. Keep in mind that, depending on the particular light weapon, it's often very easy to fit both a PRO weapon and a full rack of PRO equipment- if each single PRO equipment mod is 25% the cost of a single PRO light weapon, for example, a Logi will still end up paying more for their suit than an assault of equal fitting/tier, even if that assault fits a PRO sidearm. The difference is that the price gap is significantly reduced. Compared to now, that's a quite substantial benefit, IMO. Now, admittedly the pricing is, as you said, merely a rough normalization... but I would humbly contend that the normalization that you have put forth is still a bit too pricy. It especially looks as if the net cost of an ADV-level logi rig is going to go up, and likely by a not-inconsiderable amount. As far as the equipment stat changes: Repair Tools As I've commented before, I do not use repair tools, so I will leave these to those more experienced (and interested) in the use of reppers. Drop Uplinks Honestly, I think that the PRO-variants are the only ones that look good. That said, I also think that there's just not enough stat differentiation. First off, the Abyss variant links are, quite frankly, fine in their current configuration- aside from the AUR-only aspect, that is. Can we get the Abyss variant changed to an ISK-purchased item? Secondly, Quantum links do not offer enough of an increased spawn-count per link to be compelling. I can confidently say that with the numbers you propose, I would never use Quantum links. Admittedly, I don't use Quantum links at present anyways- I find that the Amarr Logi bonus somewhat obsoletes the Quantum Uplink. Here, however, there's just not enough of a difference to make Quantum links compelling. Third, Flux links are still obsoleting basic links. The only disadvantage Flux links offer is the price hike. That's it. I'd also like to mention that Gauged links still come off as redundant, but that has more to do with Gauged links just being generally redundant anyway. Stable links are also seeming like they have no actual differentiation besides what could be expressed as "less filling"; Stable links pretty much offer the same conundrum as Stable scanners- they do almost everything better than the lower-tier variants, only requiring an ISK hike. Nanohives Generally, these look good. I think my favorite part is the alteration of Flux nanos (which are useless) into a PRO-level Quantum variant. With that said... I still question the usefulness of a Quantum-variant nanohive, even with your proposed change of "same resupply rate, MOAR clusters". That said, the proposed alteration of Quantum-variants going from "faster resupply" to "moar clusters" is potentially interesting- I would wager that dedicated Caldari Logis would probably like it best, as it then kicks their bonus into being more effective (due to more base clusters) for establishing an entrenched defensive position. Also, what are your thoughts on an ADV-level Triage nano? Scanners Generally, I like. About the only issues I see are that Focused scanners still seem like they have a lack of usefulness even given their precision advantage- but that has more to do with the tremendously long cooldown. I would recommend dialing it back to 35 seconds- just 5 less than the current. I'd also like to mention that Stable scanners need a legitimate drawback other than "higher ISK price". Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 537	Posted - 2014.11.22 01:26:00 - [1033] - Quote Ah-CHOOO!!! Damn, I'm allergic to this thread getting buried while Rattati has 5 different feedbacks open all on topics integral to the discussion in here... Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4667	Posted - 2014.11.22 01:54:00 - [1034] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Problem, "tactical godfather", is you're sounding like you want to create fallback positions while being pushed back so now you're concerned about spawn counts/speeds, whereas I'm concerned with creating fallback positions before ever having pushed forward in the first place so placement timing is my concern. Checkers vs. Chess. Not even what I'm saying; also unsure how you could infer that from the statement. Overall, considering the last 24-48 hrs of posts I am questioning your reading comprehension at this point. Not trolling but serious. So, be clearer then in your statements. Every Logistical style that actively supplies a group AND establishes preemptive positioning is hurt by BW limits. That you can't, don't or won't see that tells me you rarely if at all are acting in this manner tactically, which really only leaves you either A) Reacting Logistically on the battlefield, not Dictating Logistically or B) Are just another ammo humper leashed to a heavy both of which explain your problem understanding my problem with BW. Not trolling, but serious as my ability to more than read whatever gets posted in here. To quote Dr. Watson, no sht, Sherlock! It nerfs everyone else 10x as hard. I can live with that. I'd love to go back to the days when most of the EQ was placed by logis and we were rightfully rewarded. When no duchebags would spawn in on my hard-to reach uplink and crap two of theirs on top of it to steal my WP. Hell, if I could even tell which uplinks were mine in the sea of blue it would be an improvement. Your problem is that you can't look past "I can't do as much" and see how the end result actually benefits us. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 537	Posted - 2014.11.22 02:21:00 - [1035] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Problem, "tactical godfather", is you're sounding like you want to create fallback positions while being pushed back so now you're concerned about spawn counts/speeds, whereas I'm concerned with creating fallback positions before ever having pushed forward in the first place so placement timing is my concern. Checkers vs. Chess. Not even what I'm saying; also unsure how you could infer that from the statement. Overall, considering the last 24-48 hrs of posts I am questioning your reading comprehension at this point. Not trolling but serious. So, be clearer then in your statements. Every Logistical style that actively supplies a group AND establishes preemptive positioning is hurt by BW limits. That you can't, don't or won't see that tells me you rarely if at all are acting in this manner tactically, which really only leaves you either A) Reacting Logistically on the battlefield, not Dictating Logistically or B) Are just another ammo humper leashed to a heavy both of which explain your problem understanding my problem with BW. Not trolling, but serious as my ability to more than read whatever gets posted in here. To quote Dr. Watson, no sht, Sherlock! It nerfs everyone else 10x as hard. I can live with that. I'd love to go back to the days when most of the EQ was placed by logis and we were rightfully rewarded. When no duchebags would spawn in on my hard-to reach uplink and crap two of theirs on top of it to steal my WP. Hell, if I could even tell which uplinks were mine in the sea of blue it would be an improvement. Your problem is that you can't look past "I can't do as much" and see how the end result actually benefits us. No, my problem is I won't quietly accept a nerf even if it means nerfing everybody else too "10x as hard". I don't see the end result benefitting when it includes blanket nerfs for all when other options could address the issue, and keep its effects limited to just the issue, without nerfing other worthwhile elements. " Bird in the hand for nothing in the bush". Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 537	Posted - 2014.11.22 02:26:00 - [1036] - Quote And if your response to my response is " No **** Sherlock" then what I'm saying is obvious and patently true. Which reinforces and validates my statement that your idea of "Logistics" is Reactive and centered more or less solely on blobbing with leashed heavies. To which I respond, "Your style is Elementary, my dear Watson. Elementary. " Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4668	Posted - 2014.11.22 03:17:00 - [1037] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: And if your response to my response is " No **** Sherlock" then what I'm saying is obvious and patently true. Which reinforces and validates my statement that your idea of "Logistics" is Reactive and centered more or less solely on blobbing with leashed heavies. To which I respond, "Your style is Elementary, my dear Watson. Elementary. " If you say so. vOv Moving on. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 537	Posted - 2014.11.22 03:44:00 - [1038] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And if your response to my response is " No **** Sherlock" then what I'm saying is obvious and patently true. Which reinforces and validates my statement that your idea of "Logistics" is Reactive and centered more or less solely on blobbing with leashed heavies. To which I respond, "Your style is Elementary, my dear Watson. Elementary. " If you say so. vOv Moving on. lol, actually, YOU said so. Don't get it twisted. ..V, Moving on... Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1326	Posted - 2014.11.23 20:23:00 - [1039] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: Meee One wrote: I-Shayz-I wrote: Meee One wrote: I will admit triage hives seemed to have too many clusters... But having Pro level hive with less clusters than even a compact? Don't grenades take 12-24 clusters to refill? So,with this reduction i could refill 8 grenades,woo. And hybrids are bad enough as is,yet you want them to refill less? This seems like a good idea increasing carried amounts,but you're forgetting something. Logis are supposed to be equipment masters,and unless the equipment +carried is logistics exclusive imma say no. And logistics would require a class wide bonus to cluster amount to not completely destroy nanos effectiveness. Um The whole point here is to make it so that you can drop more equipment with less effectiveness per drop. This lets you use equipment more often while reducing the overall duration of equipment as to discourage spam. You'll be able to drop ammo for your team in 6 different places instead of just 3, or place uplinks in 12 different places instead of 3. However, equipment is still limited to 2 down at a time meaning that you can't just drop a hive (or 5) in an area and expect them to be there when you get back. The whole point is that you must constantly have this equipment on the suit for it to continue to be effective rather than dropping a ** ton of uplinks with 20 spawns on them each that will last forever. In combination with the new bandwidth proposal, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for people to spam equipment while still allowing dedicated logistics players to use tons of equipment. If that's not an insane amount of WIN-WIN to you then you have to be crazy or maybe you don't understand this proposal. (1) Any positive change to equipment should be given through logistics exclusive bonuses. Any negative change to equipment should be negated by logistics exclusive bonuses. (2) One main problem with logistics survivability is that no one sees them as valuable. But if assaults and scouts could only carry 2 hives while logistics can carry 6-7,it would add value. And logistics would be seen as a long-term winning asset worth protection. -snip- I'll be away for a few days after i post this,but i'll never change my view. Logistics should benefit exclusively,and other classes should benefit through** logistics. @Meee 1) Do you not see that the BW thing is a logistics bonus? Its just tied to the suit, not the skill, which may not be the better option but it's still logi-exclusive: +50-100% more EQ per tier (depending on the comparison suit) 2) ADV scouts, with the BW proposal, will only be able to deploy 2 hives. Proto can use 3. So.... not sure what you are getting at there. @Shayz: I'm still not really coming around to the uplinks with only 5 spawns but you can carry a crapton of them thing. Instead of 5 spawns and carry 8, why not 10 spawns and you carry 4? Obviously the quantum uplinks with 25 spawns or whatever never get used, but why not a middle ground? I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. 1) I was talking about the equipment changes (increased carry amount) applying to all suits. Why run a Cal logi (with even less effective bonuses because of this change after all,less clusters = lower bonus given) and die easier,when you can sacrifice a few eq slots and live longer as an assault? Have you read the BW thread? Players are willing to have only a single uplink as a sent,simply because they'll live longer. The last thing we need is for assaults to compete with logistics in equipment,seeing as CCP favors them,logistics would lose. 2)Another inherent flaw with Dust as a whole is the thought process that 'logistics should need a squad',yet assaults,scouts and even heavies were buffed to levels where they don't. This made logistics an unnecessary burden to it's squad mates. Logis need an 'escort' to be effective while assaults don't. This effectively reduces the whole teams fighting potential by 1 for every logi,totaling 2 counting the logi themselves. Consider that,each logistics because 'it has to have a squad' costs their team 2 fighters (themselves and their escort,if you can find one). Plus,equipment was nerfed. Other suits can use equipment to the same effect as 2/3rds of all logistics (seeing as logistics don't have bonuses to all equipment). And you have a pretty deadweight suit. If carried amounts is increased across the board instead of being logistics exclusive,it becomes yet another reason not to use logistics. Other classes are too autonomous,and this would be another way for them to stay that way. Logistics can stop being a burden however,just make them masters of equipment (like they are supposed to be anyway),since suit buffs will always be subpar to what it actually needs. Tl;dr Any + carried should be logistics exclusive. It's what they're designed for. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4692	Posted - 2014.11.24 01:15:00 - [1040] - Quote That's all fine and good, and yes I did read the entire BW thread. Remember that it's not meant to be done in isolation, it should be part of a larger logistics revamp as we've been discussing all along. Doing one without the others certainly does not leave us in a markedly better position than currently, but all of them together just as certainly would. (The godfather of tactical logistics)

Auris Lionesse Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 1276	Posted - 2014.11.24 01:31:00 - [1041] - Quote Meee One wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: Meee One wrote: I-Shayz-I wrote: Meee One wrote: I will admit triage hives seemed to have too many clusters... But having Pro level hive with less clusters than even a compact? Don't grenades take 12-24 clusters to refill? So,with this reduction i could refill 8 grenades,woo. And hybrids are bad enough as is,yet you want them to refill less? This seems like a good idea increasing carried amounts,but you're forgetting something. Logis are supposed to be equipment masters,and unless the equipment +carried is logistics exclusive imma say no. And logistics would require a class wide bonus to cluster amount to not completely destroy nanos effectiveness. Um The whole point here is to make it so that you can drop more equipment with less effectiveness per drop. This lets you use equipment more often while reducing the overall duration of equipment as to discourage spam. You'll be able to drop ammo for your team in 6 different places instead of just 3, or place uplinks in 12 different places instead of 3. However, equipment is still limited to 2 down at a time meaning that you can't just drop a hive (or 5) in an area and expect them to be there when you get back. The whole point is that you must constantly have this equipment on the suit for it to continue to be effective rather than dropping a ** ton of uplinks with 20 spawns on them each that will last forever. In combination with the new bandwidth proposal, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for people to spam equipment while still allowing dedicated logistics players to use tons of equipment. If that's not an insane amount of WIN-WIN to you then you have to be crazy or maybe you don't understand this proposal. (1) Any positive change to equipment should be given through logistics exclusive bonuses. Any negative change to equipment should be negated by logistics exclusive bonuses. (2) One main problem with logistics survivability is that no one sees them as valuable. But if assaults and scouts could only carry 2 hives while logistics can carry 6-7,it would add value. And logistics would be seen as a long-term winning asset worth protection. -snip- I'll be away for a few days after i post this,but i'll never change my view. Logistics should benefit exclusively,and other classes should benefit through** logistics. @Meee 1) Do you not see that the BW thing is a logistics bonus? Its just tied to the suit, not the skill, which may not be the better option but it's still logi-exclusive: +50-100% more EQ per tier (depending on the comparison suit) 2) ADV scouts, with the BW proposal, will only be able to deploy 2 hives. Proto can use 3. So.... not sure what you are getting at there. @Shayz: I'm still not really coming around to the uplinks with only 5 spawns but you can carry a crapton of them thing. Instead of 5 spawns and carry 8, why not 10 spawns and you carry 4? Obviously the quantum uplinks with 25 spawns or whatever never get used, but why not a middle ground? I think it's even less helpful with the BW mechanic. Placing fallback positions will be a major pain if I can only put out like 4 uplinks with 5 spawns each at a time. 1) I was talking about the equipment changes (increased carry amount) applying to all suits. Why run a Cal logi (with even less effective bonuses because of this change after all,less clusters = lower bonus given) and die easier,when you can sacrifice a few eq slots and live longer as an assault? Have you read the BW thread? Players are willing to have only a single uplink as a sent,simply because they'll live longer. The last thing we need is for assaults to compete with logistics in equipment,seeing as CCP favors them,logistics would lose. 2)Another inherent flaw with Dust as a whole is the thought process that 'logistics should need a squad',yet assaults,scouts and even heavies were buffed to levels where they don't. This made logistics an unnecessary burden to it's squad mates. Logis need an 'escort' to be effective while assaults don't. This effectively reduces the whole teams fighting potential by 1 for every logi,totaling 2 counting the logi themselves. Consider that,each logistics because 'it has to have a squad' costs their team 2 fighters (themselves and their escort,if you can find one). Plus,equipment was nerfed. Other suits can use equipment to the same effect as 2/3rds of all logistics (seeing as logistics don't have bonuses to all equipment). And you have a pretty deadweight suit. If carried amounts is increased across the board instead of being logistics exclusive,it becomes yet another reason not to use logistics. Other classes are too autonomous,and this would be another way for them to stay that way. Logistics can stop being a burden however,just make them masters of equipment (like they are supposed to be anyway),since suit buffs will always be subpar to what it actually needs. Tl;dr Any + carried should be logistics exclusive. It's what they're designed for. do you play eve? logis are not combat ships. they are support ships. remote armor repairers are highslot items. so the rep tool in eve would be a highslot item. and you sacrifice weapons to fit healers. logi ships only have half of their highslots available for weapons. and no one fits them with guns anyway cause theyre useless offensively. your job is not to fight or be self sufficient. your job is to keep the fighting units alive as a part of a group. logis should need an escort and they arent meant to be autonomous. if they were meant to be autonomous they wouldnt be built around giving other suits aid. Don't vote for iron wolf saber. Vote for someone who will help the community i.e. anyone else.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5267	Posted - 2014.11.24 05:23:00 - [1042] - Quote Logis in EVE don't work like logis in DUST at all. They have a similar function, but that isn't the same as being the same thing. Use the concepts for comparison but trying to make dropsuits work like ships is kinda like trying to make a devout, peace-loving pacifist with anxiety issues into a United States or Royal Marine. Probably not going to work well. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1329	Posted - 2014.11.24 09:51:00 - [1043] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Logis in EVE don't work like logis in DUST at all. They have a similar function, but that isn't the same as being the same thing. Use the concepts for comparison but trying to make dropsuits work like ships is kinda like trying to make a devout, peace-loving pacifist with anxiety issues into a United States or Royal Marine. Probably not going to work well. Judging by the responses to my defense oriented logistics variation suggestion,i'd have to agree. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
Z3dog BIG BAD W0LVES 17	Posted - 2014.11.28 18:12:00 - [1044] - Quote Rescuing thread from 5th page Dust 5/14
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1346	Posted - 2014.11.28 21:43:00 - [1045] - Quote Z3dog wrote: Rescuing thread from 5th page You'd think with the new BW idea players would take interest ITT. But i guess they're all too busy trying to get (insert suit here) buffed to use equipment instead. Oh the hillarity. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
Z3dog BIG BAD W0LVES 21	Posted - 2014.11.29 01:45:00 - [1046] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=182530&find=unread scout doublethink Just replace the letters RE with the word uplinks in several of the posts. Dust 5/14
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1350	Posted - 2014.11.29 20:48:00 - [1047] - Quote Just going to add on about rep tools cooldown. I hope the class wide cooldown is significant,because if it isn't,you'll see a resurgence of killer bees. Not because they want to be killers,but because they now have so much more free time. -scans on 30 second cooldown -out of deployables -no one calling for rez -use rep tool? (nope,it's on cooldown) What does this leave logistics users? Their weapon. And as such,logistics users will be forced to change fittings to accommodate this new meta. Knowing there will be times they can't support,they will upgrade their weapon. Which is why the cooldown decrease must be significant. Unless,of course,CCP likes/liked logi slayers and wants to bring them back. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
I-Shayz-I I----------I 5201	Posted - 2014.11.29 22:21:00 - [1048] - Quote I always use my weapon when possible...doesn't make me an effective slayer at all in my logi suit though. I don't agree with rep tool cooldowns though...Is rather just reduce triage wp rewards. 7162 wp with a Repair Tool!
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1355	Posted - 2014.12.02 23:12:00 - [1049] - Quote So,now that colors can be changed. Can we assume shield rep tools are coming? With blue beams instead of yellow. And maybe hybrids? With 1 blue and 1 gold beam.(seeing as each beam has 1 straight beam and 1 that moves around). This would let everyone know what kind of reps the logistics has. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 572	Posted - 2014.12.02 23:33:00 - [1050] - Quote Meee One wrote: Just going to add on about rep tools cooldown. I hope the class wide cooldown is significant,because if it isn't,you'll see a resurgence of killer bees. Not because they want to be killers,but because they now have so much more free time. -scans on 30 second cooldown -out of deployables -no one calling for rez -use rep tool? (nope,it's on cooldown) What does this leave logistics users? Their weapon. And as such,logistics users will be forced to change fittings to accommodate this new meta. Knowing there will be times they can't support,they will upgrade their weapon. Which is why the cooldown decrease must be significant. Unless,of course,CCP likes/liked logi slayers and wants to bring them back. Oh, dude. The slayers are coming back. BW has guaranteed it. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.