Infiltration: Profile dampen scout to 14 db. Carry an R-9 uplink. Go to an enemy objective. Drop two uplinks at separate locations on the outskirts. Move in and hack everything. Set 3 REs on/around the objective. (Current total BW 17)

Shotgun hunter: Scouts make great shotgun hunters due to their speed and ewar capabilities. Carry a triage hive and an ammo hive. If I were running low on HP and ammo, in a crunch, I could drop both hives, rep and restock and quickly get back into action. (Current total BW 8)

Is the RE completely necessary for this playstyle? The uplinks allow your team to begin deploying in your location. Other mercs can deploy REs if they are really necessary. Just tell your squa-nevermind this is a Clone D thread.

Just use an advanced or prototype scout dropsuit... not seeing a problem here.

Obviously, I can figure out the work around. What I am interested in is why we wanted these play styles to stop.

The uplink scenario was probably shot in the head in an effort to reduce uplink spam and give logis a bigger piece of a piece of the uplink "pie".

Okay

Uplink spam: is the ability to deploy 2 uplinks and 3 REs really spam? Give me a number. What is spam?

Logis piece of pie: Can logis deploy uplinks elsewhere? Obviously, they weren't on location where the scout was, or the scout wouldn't need to deploy uplinks. I don't see scouts having a monopoly on uplinks if they deploy two and some REs.

Spam is what happens when every merc on the battlefield can deploy 2+ uplinks quite easily and with little ISK investment involved. 2 uplinks and 3 REs is not spam. ((2 Uplinks)(3 REs)16) now that is spam.

CPM and CCP has confirmed that bandwidth is here to stay, no matter how many stealth bandwidth whine threads get opened. Maybe you are striking up these threads in the spirit of constructive criticism, but they are coming across as desperate.

You could use the same argument now. If everyone spawned in as a STD Amarr Logi with 5 uplinks, then you would have 5 Uplinks X 16 = 80 uplinks which is spam. That is at a relatively low cost to the players ~15k-20k ISK.

There must be a transitional period to allow the meta to adjust. As stated by logis themselves, there aren't enough logis, so let's loosen up the bandwidth constraints until there are enough logis.

Killing healthy play styles: There is no reason to kill healthy play styles.

Then everyone would be in a non-slayer dropsuit and the team would be at a severe disadvantage. Sure, they would have dozens of uplinks, but in a fire fight they would get put down.

In my scenario, with the standard scouts, they would still remain competitive in terms of slaying while simultaneously deploying dozens of uplinks and REs. That would mean the scout is not assisting a logi in deploying uplinks, he is replacing him AND then going on to do a damn decent job of killing people too.

... do you seriously not see a problem with that?

You are right. The standard-scout-dropsuit-slays-and-deploys-advanced-equipment playstyle isn't healthy. That's why it was killed

1. Saying "16 scouts deploying 2 uplinks and 3 REs is spam" is an extreme because it does not apply to the current meta.

2. The current meta has not adjusted to bandwidth yet, and therefore is in a transitional period.

That is an extreme example, but it demonstrates what is possible using the scenario you put forward.

The meta has settled.

You are the one having problems transitioning.

You also have completely ignored my question about running higher tiered dropsuits. Are you refusing to run higher tiered dropsuit because that would effectively negate the two scenarios you put forward?

Why are these methods frowned upon?

Here are some examples of how I used to deploy scout equipment:

Infiltration: Profile dampen scout to 14 db. Carry an R-9 uplink. Go to an enemy objective. Drop two uplinks at separate locations on the outskirts. Move in and hack everything. Set 3 REs on/around the objective. (Current total BW 17)

Shotgun hunter: Scouts make great shotgun hunters due to their speed and ewar capabilities. Carry a triage hive and an ammo hive. If I were running low on HP and ammo, in a crunch, I could drop both hives, rep and restock and quickly get back into action. (Current total BW 8)

What specifically is wrong with either of those two play styles?

[quote=Ripley Riley]The meta has settled.

I'm with Demonsbane. The Scout was not given 2 EQ slots to fill the role of Logi Lite.

If you loosen the constraints, allowing non-logistics suits to use a lot of EQ again, by what possible logic or reason would that result in more people becoming logis?

Seriously, just stop. It's getting sad. If you want to advocate for lower BW for RE's or something, go for it. But the QQ about your scout suit not being able to do everything by itself is tiresome

Raging at the bandwidth restrictions placed on you is counterproductive when you blame the other roles and not CCP. This is the second thread you put up today that I have read and they basically say the same thing. Although this one is not quite so ignorant.

...and yet logis still claim that there are a shortage of logis...

The logi numbers problem will settle itself if the suit is made less squishy. Which is, to my knowledge, on the table.

Active support play is wildly unpopular.

If you want to have lots of equipment on the field then play a logi and quit complaining that they are now under-represented now that the tourist toilet was flushed.

As logis become more critical and in demand more players will skill in and use them.

A lot of old logis quit the role entirely because anything they could do assaults or scouts could do better.

If you are stating that the meta has settled, and logis also state that there aren't enough logis, then that implies one of two things:

EITHER

1. the meta has not settled, and more people will soon spec into logi once they get tired of running out of ammo or spawning from the redline.

OR

2. Logi suits are in desperate need of a revamp.

More importantly, I'll restate my actual point: In none of these scenarios would giving scout suits more BW result in a proliferation of logis.

(Also: Would not happen in any other possible scenario that does not involve living on Bizarro world.).

When was this ever stated?


I disagree with the claim that support game play is "widely unpopular". I see many people who come into the game finding out about the support playstyle and actively asking about it on Rookie Training Grounds. Many admit their gungame and 1v1 skills aren't that great and vouch to support their team in other ways.

I've been a Logi since the Uprising respec, and recently skilled into all the racial Logis as well as a couple of other roles. Those roles are very much situational, but I will still continue to use my Logistics suits in battle because support play is my favorite role in the battle. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I've been a Logi and I'm still a Logi and I'm still around. All those other "Logis" you mentioned were either posers and/or Slayer Logis whose era of slaying was up when Logistics became more and more of a supportive role.

I like to dirty sanchez myself and shove a pickle in my pooper while fondling my flute.

look guys I've discovered a trick that's been in use since the beta test doors first opened! I R SMRT

Confirming that you have successfully learned a new trick.

That is the problem. You are bent on making more people do what they obviously don't want to do: play logi. There is a natural balance, and bw is offsetting the player base by attempting to shift more people into the logi role, whereas the players don't want to perform that role and you end up with all red letters and no friendly uplinks because there is no role transference, which essentially is agreed upon by the community, that all roles support each other, hence we all need a little spare bw to give a buffer between the role we want to play and the tad bit of team support that each person must contribute in order to run a successful team.

Bane did a FTFY in order to avoid actually following an argument to conclusion. I was simply responding to the gimpiness.