I have wondered about this for 2 years.

Either make it actual equipment, or put it in the grenade slot. It can't be both.

Reading this....makes me believe that you don't play this game.

Because you were talking pure theoretical and not practical. There are many objectives where you can create distance and kill a heavy before running for the hack. Just thinking off of the top (without doing the actual research), I believe there are way more objectives where you can do so.

And then you say that shotguns are not a good counter for heavies. Scouts can get 2 to 3 shots off before a heavy can turn and find out what the hell is going on. But usually, if the scout is a competent, it's too late.


....totally irrelevant because my point was about trying to nerf the number of scouts or assaults on the field. I wasn't referring to nerfing the scout's roles.

You appear to be one of those guys that are just fascinating with the math and nothing else.

1. You mentioned the speed of a heavy as an asset...lulz

2. A scout can see a heavy on its map and flank around and 3 shot him in the back. They will definitely get 2 shots off before the heavy can react. By the time the heavy turns around, it is over. Not to mention that the heavy is huge and has a bigger hitbox (unless something was changed) than other suits. Couple that with the fact that even if the heavy can turn around, the scout is strafing like a madman and the heavy is down to one shot.

3. The reason you see less scouts is because assault suits got buffed. Now, if you guys actually read instead of skimming, then you would understand my point. Do people want to nerf the heavy suits or do they want to nerf the heavy spam? It sounds like people want to nerf the spam and my question was how can you nerf spam of a suit (without nerfing the suit)? If 11 people in a match are specced into heavy suits, how can you stop that? I compared it to trying to stop 12 people in a game from going scout or going assault.

1. you're still reaching

2. Heavies have the advantage if they see a scout and the scout is in front of them. Scouts have the advantage when the heavy does not see them. They are passively scanning heavies and have the ability to run around and get behind them without the heavy knowing. They can get 2 shots off before the heavy starts to turn around. Even if the heavy have enough tank to turn around, he may be down to one more shot. But the scout is right up on him and the closer he his, the faster the strafe appears to be. I find it amazing that you feel the scout is at a disadvantage because the heavy can strafe.

3. The reason we see less scouts is because the assault suits got buffed....period. If the assault suits didn't get buffed, I'm sure there would be more scout suits on the field. People stopped using logi suits for slayer suits because the scout suits got buffed. It's the same cycle. If you nerf heavy suits, I'm sure some people may stop using them. But as long as they are still useful, players will use their heavy suits. They use it because it is easy mode on an objective. It melts people in cqc situations..as intended.

1. You're reaching because you tried to use the speed of a heavy as an asset. And now you are comparing it to a large blaster turret. You have to see the fail in this.

2. I'm not sure what you are trying to do anymore. Now, you are talking about a scenario if a heavy has a scout in his squad to try and help your argument. And you mention "4.5 secs" for a scout to get 3 shots off. Are you accounting for how many shots the scout has placed in the heavy while his back was turned and can't see him? What is up with you an numbers though?

3. Scouts weren't using it for ewar...mostly. They were using it as slayer scouts because you can do so much with them. Who was using gal, min, or amarr scouts for ewar before they got nerfed? I'd say scouts are more ewar now than they've ever been. Because slayers have gone back to assaults because they are better fitted for that role.

1. You're an idiot for trying using speed as an asset for a heavy when comparing it to a scout. You should have just conceded that it was a fail point but you look even more foolish trying to back it up. I mean, seriously....you're comparing speed of a blaster turret to back up your statement.

And you're right..I'm an even bigger idiot for debating you....so take care :)

I meant to write "You're an idiot for using speed as an asset....." I may have been thinking of writing, "trying to use" and didn't realize I actually typed it. But thanks for being catty.