|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4483
   |
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
You are welcome to stop by the Barbershop for any Scout analysis.
There can be surly moments, so beware, but otherwise we do try as much as possible to be rational and there is plenty of maths.
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4488
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Forlorn Destrier wrote:Bax Zanith wrote:This isn't a qq thread. Some threads i've been reading recently was arguments about scouts, and how there so much better at assaulting than the assault class. More importantly i've been watching Mat Pat's game theory videos on youtube. That cuppuled with some of judge's videos gave me an idea. Rather than scream at one another "this is OP, your a scrub!" Or "this is perfectly fine, your a scrub!" Why not try to analyze both classes, and use hard cold math and logic to find out if the scout really is better at assaulting than the assault class.
The only problem is; math isn't my forta, it's dull to me, and I was never good at it. So this thread is essentially crowed sourcing. With the help of you guys, we might be able to put this argument to rest. My first question to the forum is what specific data do I need to look into, what factors of both classes do I need to look at and consider?
I have an idea where to kind of start out, probably the most obvious things. I was going to compare raw stats of each race's assault and scout suits with each other (EX; ammar scout stats vs. Amarr assault stats.), organizing them by level. Then compare slot numbers.
This isn't to prove scouts are op, this is to answer the question "is the scout class really better at assaulting than the assault class?" Helpful and constrictive replies would be appreciated. Spelling is also not your forte (note the use of the letter "e" and not the letter "a"). Also, coupled, not cuppuled.
The least you could have done was given some feedback on the actual topic too...
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4494
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bax Zanith wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:You want to define the roles, set their goals/objectives into stone before even looking at the math. Once you've got that, take into consideration the things most valued in that role given the current maps of Dust and what is allowed. Things such as HP possibilities, versatility, staying power, etc. your absolutely right, but i fear it may be far easier said then done. What is the goal and objective of the scout and assault roles? This question is best left for CCP to answer, I'm sure i could find the answer by digging deep into the forums, and finding dev posts that might describe what they had in mind for the two roles, but it may take more time to search than i can give. Regardless i'll start searching and hope i find it. also, i would of replied sooner, but i started the thread just before getting to my college campus.
I think that it would make sense if the roles were that scouts were squishy assassins and Assaults were good at regen and sustained fights when using cover.
This would give sentinals the role of being infantry tanks, but without sufficient regen by themselves to take on lots of enemies without taking cover or being able to take multiple waves of enemies and being able to regen completely without logi help.
Commandos.... idk. They are kind of the step child of the bunch in terms of roles right now.
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4496
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Forlorn Destrier wrote:One Eyed King wrote:Forlorn Destrier wrote:Bax Zanith wrote:This isn't a qq thread. Some threads i've been reading recently was arguments about scouts, and how there so much better at assaulting than the assault class. More importantly i've been watching Mat Pat's game theory videos on youtube. That cuppuled with some of judge's videos gave me an idea. Rather than scream at one another "this is OP, your a scrub!" Or "this is perfectly fine, your a scrub!" Why not try to analyze both classes, and use hard cold math and logic to find out if the scout really is better at assaulting than the assault class.
The only problem is; math isn't my forta, it's dull to me, and I was never good at it. So this thread is essentially crowed sourcing. With the help of you guys, we might be able to put this argument to rest. My first question to the forum is what specific data do I need to look into, what factors of both classes do I need to look at and consider?
I have an idea where to kind of start out, probably the most obvious things. I was going to compare raw stats of each race's assault and scout suits with each other (EX; ammar scout stats vs. Amarr assault stats.), organizing them by level. Then compare slot numbers.
This isn't to prove scouts are op, this is to answer the question "is the scout class really better at assaulting than the assault class?" Helpful and constrictive replies would be appreciated. Spelling is also not your forte (note the use of the letter "e" and not the letter "a"). Also, coupled, not cuppuled. The least you could have done was given some feedback on the actual topic too... No, the least I could have done was to say "Bacon" and left it at that
I think you underestimate the value of Bacon, such that even its mention provides the image and hope of future Bacon.
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
|
|
| |
|