DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] eHP and Speed

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] eHP and Speed

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 31 post(s)
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 17:49:00 - [1] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: With the planned tiericide, I confidently predict the return of the slayer Logi. Identical slots, more fitting space, and now faster than the assault suits. After all, the Min Logi will have a 4/4/4 slot layout at all tiers, and is getting the min assaut speed. Fit militia equipment to free up fitting space and the ADV min logi becomes the current Proto Min Assault. You can apply the same logic to the other assaults with dare i say it, lackluster bonuses. A cal logi with 5/3/3 slots or a slower caldari assault that can reload. Gal logi with extra fitting space or a slow gal assault that has less dispersion? And the Amarr assult....well might as well run a commando or heavy suit instead, more HP and more fire power, and identical if not faster speeds. Include power cores which function in fit offerings based around role so skipping the use of equipment doesn't buy you much and/or include a requirement to fit equipment on the suits. I do agree however the the racial skills need looked at, but that's true not just of both medium frames but of the commandos and possibly even the scouts. All of that is relevant of course, but iterative balance requires that it not all be done at once so we can avoid the mad swings of the beta days. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 18:26:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: The Min Logi getting its first ever buff? Logi suits and Commando suits, my two primary play styles, are getting a buff? I never thought I would see the day!!! Is the Logi speed buff for movement speed only, or sprint speed as well? Will Logis move faster, but Assaults sprint faster? The Slayer Logi QQ is expected, but you are seriously nerfing yourself by trying to make a Logi perform an Assaults role... I am not worried about killer bees. sprint and strafe speeds are just multipliers off of movement speed, so all go up. As a CPM and thus community rep I feel it important to confirm, publicly and on the record that CCP Rattati is not a sufferer of melissophobia, unlike some poor unfortunates in our community. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 18:37:00 - [3] - Quote Brush Master wrote: logi speed increase, about dam time Is your secret middle name "Tycus" CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 18:45:00 - [4] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Well. This is interesting. Some thoughts: Slow speed will make the shotgun assault fits pretty much useless, this may or may not be a good thing depending on how you feel about shotgun assaults. Concern about killer bees activated. Heres what Im going to do if this change goes live: Delete my shotgun min assault fit. Create Min Logi fit: Add shotgun Add the exact same module layout (x4 adv extenders, x1 regulator, x1 damp, x2 kincat) Add core locus grenade Add remote explosive Add nanohive Add uplinks Add injector I lose my bolt pistol sidearm but now have better scanning, 4 times the equipment, and slightly less hp, I'd say its a wash. You also have a higher per fit ISK cost Vesta Opalus wrote: Also Im concerned that the amar logi will now be a much more attractive option for slaying than the Cal/Gal assaults. The Cal/Gal assaults have pretty ** poor weapon bonuses as is, so its not much of a sacrifice to drop those and get +2 equipment slots in return, and all you have to do to make up for most of the HP loss is lowball one or two equipment slots, in return you get (for example) a nanohive PLUS a crappy nanite injector and good uplinks + the amar logi uplink bonus. I did a thread awhile back about the Cal/Gal bonuses. Unfortunately at the time no resolution was reached due to a number of factors but I do still think the situation with the assault racial skills needs to be address even before the advent of these new polish elements in the OP. Vesta Opalus wrote:** I am happy to see talk of an extra module slot for commandos though (please consider giving Cal Commando better base shield regen and all commandos a bit better native armor repair as well). Edit to add: amar assault may be too slow to be effective after scrambler rebalancing, but who knows Commando native armor regen was already added during the earlier pass, I'd be inclined to see where things stand after they get their slots and movement shifts before altering their baseline further but keeping an eye on them I absolutely agree with. Though the next step may be a look a their racial skills because rather like the assaults they need some polish regardless. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 18:48:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: The Min Logi getting its first ever buff? Logi suits and Commando suits, my two primary play styles, are getting a buff? I never thought I would see the day!!! Is the Logi speed buff for movement speed only, or sprint speed as well? Will Logis move faster, but Assaults sprint faster? The Slayer Logi QQ is expected, but you are seriously nerfing yourself by trying to make a Logi perform an Assaults role... I am not worried about killer bees. sprint and strafe speeds are just multipliers off of movement speed, so all go up. Coolio. Have you considered forcing all equipment slots to be filled to make a valid fit? I have, but that will be a later part when I am balancing the same powercore for assaults and logistics. The key to avoiding the issue is to make the fitting reduction bonus on the Logistics significantly higher and then reducing the overall resources. This way fitting equipment is very 'cheap' but refusal to fit equipment does not free up many resources to spend on additional defenses. Since you're going to be touching on resources anyways for Logistics with the change in slots, this is the prime opportunity to address this issue. If a further push is needed here the CPU/PG costs of equipment could also be scaled upwards to give wider margins. Additionally if equipment use has a higher opportunity cost it wouldn't be unreasonable to value the logistics ability to use it readily at a higher level in overall role balance. But all of that is likely another layer of changes after these are deployed with the degrees determined by what trends emerge in game. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 21:11:00 - [6] - Quote alias lycan wrote: This is a pretty dangerous thing to do as long as logis and assaults have the same slot count. I think the cal logi actually has 1 more slot than the assault. People could just copy their assault fits and improve them with the extra cpu and pg plus have the speed. Depends on your assault fitting I suppose but you have to apply the role bonus (fittings cost reduction to LW, sidearm and nade) as well. Also there isn't really "extra" cpu and pg it's a bit different but not just "more" so it's usefulness is going to be down to the specific fits not a blanket loss/gain. Cal for example Assault has more CPU Logi has more PG Same story with the Min medium frames though the margins are a bit tighter. So there won't be more cpu and pg, possibly one but not both, and the Am Logi aside no one can copy paste their assault fit to a logi unless they don't use a sidearm at all (which some may not, but sidearm utility is obviously something above zero so shouldn't be dismissed out of hand). You are right on the Cal logi slot layout, it needs to have that extra migrated to be an equipment rather than a utility slot that would put it in line with the assault in regards to utility slots and with the other logi in regards to equipment slots. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 21:13:00 - [7] - Quote demens grimwulff wrote: Slayer logi with 3 or 4 compact nanohives? Compact hives likely need a bit of a touch up from where they are currently. The recent changes in fittings cost helped but initial impressions seem to indicate they need toned down further. If nothing else it could always be a "limit one" equipment mod, which isn't an ideal go to solution as the first option but would be far from the worst thing ever. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 21:15:00 - [8] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: demens grimwulff wrote: On a second note... making sure all equipment slots are filled is almost useless, too... Slayer logi with 3 or 4 compact nanohives? Make all equipment slots mandatory + increase CPU/PG fitting bonuses for logis + reduce CPU/PG for logis = plenty of CPU/PG for equipment but not much left for brick tanking and proto weaponry. Been advocating some version of this for months now. Granted some of whether this is viable comes down to the numbers, but I support the general concept. Those logi currently running with full slots shouldn't have their fittings constrained further but taking steps to prevent "equipment free" fittings seems very worth while. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 21:25:00 - [9] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: increase CPU/PG fitting bonuses for logis What would a suitable fitting bonus be in your opinion? I think there's a tough problem here: - Too low fitting bonus: Fit 4 Compact Nanohives and use the remaining fitting space to become a killing machine. Bumping up the fitting requirement for compact nanos doesn't help. Needles actually have lower fitting requirements (Yes, I need 4 STD needles! ). - Too high fitting bonus: Equipment becomes 'Logi only' much like the Scout's cloak. That means you need a Scout or a Logi if you want to carry nanohives or scanners. This will make people try to get their slayer-role done with those suits since you can't run a KDR over 5 without nanohives. And squadplay will make people want to carry sticks and scanners, even if they want to be a slayer 95% of the time. There may be a middleground between these two extremes, but as long as the Logi is somewhat combat effective and has the added utility of many equipment slots people will use that. The incentive to use an Assault suit must be very big to counteract the disadvantage of having less equipment. This is currently the case. If the suggestion in the OP goes through it won't (unless additional factors apply). If you check out the logi feedback thread there's been a fair bit of theory crafting and debate on this subject. Part of the answer is that any change to the role bonus needs to account for the the value loss of not just the raw fitting reduction but the potential value with full skills, and needs to derive it's applied numbers from the cost of equipment mods themselves (since it is a % reduction to what is fit, not a raw buff to pg/cpu values). The compact nano is an issue, no two ways about that, and should likely be toned down even without these changes but certainly with the changes something needs to be looked at as a way to address them. Increased fittings costs, reduced max carried, or a hard limit of one per fit are all options on the table as far as I'm concerned, perhaps even a combination of them. Another part of the solution is to make sure the assault racial bonuses are performing with proper utility, if it is not a meaningful loss of slayer value to abandon those racial buffs (as some posts in this thread seem to imply) then the skills themselves likely need polish. Finally I believe you are correct that too high a role bonus for logi could have an adverse effect, which is part of why a mildly increased cpu/pg cost for equipment is worth looking into. It provides more definition for the support role without taking equipment out of the hands of everyone and (if combined with a equipment slots requirement on logi suits) also makes the use of a logistics frame less trivial to attempt any "cut and paste" assault fitting. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 21:57:00 - [10] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: I don't have math, but I do have logic. You're ignoring a huge factor when just balancing speed vs HP in regards to assaults and logistics. If the assaults' HP is countered by the lack of speed, and vice versa for the logistics, then the these factors are balanced against each other (no net advantage or disadvantage), and thus assaults and logistics are equal when comparing net speed/HP advantages and disadvantages. If that is the case, then the logistics comes out on top because with speed and HP being balanced with the assaults, that leaves logistics with a very large advantage with no counterbalance: the 3-4 equipment slots while assaults only have 1. If the speed and HP advantages and disadvantages of assaults and logistics cancel out against each other when the 2 suit types are compared with one another, and the logistics gets a ton more equipment slots, what does the assault have to balance against that? just a sidearm? It doesn't seem fair. Sure assaults get fitting bonuses to weapons to allow for fitting better weapons, but logis get fitting bonuses to equipment, and the savings from the equipment fitting bonus can be used to equip better weapons also. In light of this, I don't think assaults should get a speed nerf. Also, assaults are meant to be the frontline fighters that rush to objectives and clear areas. Reducing speed conflicts with their intended purpose, as it makes it harder for them to rush objectives. In short, I suggest keeping assault speeds intact. Kage your logic has holes. You cite added mods fit but make no mention of the added cost to fit them (in either ISK or CPU/PG), if one additional sidearm is of lessor value to a slayer fit then 2-3 additional equipment slots that needs to be looked at certainly but treating those slots as if they fill for free is an oversight. You omit the effect of the assault racial bonuses (if they are too weak to be worth mentioning that is something which should be fixed not a flaw in the current proposal). The contention as presented is that if survivability (largely that balance between mobility and HP) is balanced then the assault has lessor value to the logi? That seems flawed, survival is required to perform any role on the battlefield and as such should be roughly balanced anything less denigrates the overall quality of the game but diminishing the functionally useful content present. From the reasoning you've presented above it sounds like the value of the assault racial buffs and the overall ease of fitting/utility of equipment for slayer fits needs to be looked at rather than discarding the use of a inverse balance between speed and HP game wide. How many equipment slots, in your estimation, is a sidearm worth to a slayer fit? And what specific pieces of equipment would a slayer fit run in those extra slots to get better slaying utility out of their fit than the use of a side arm. Those would be key areas to consider and address if a sidearm is truly of lessor value on balance for running as a killer. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 22:02:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: You don't understand my post. I never claimed that logis would get an HP buff. My point is that the HP disadvantage will be completely cancelled out with higher speed, just like the assaults HP will be cancelled out with the speed nerf. With speed and HP advantages and disadvantages cancelling out, that leaves the logis on top because of the significantly higher equipment count. Mentioning KinKats is irrelevant considering both assaults and logistics can equally fit them. There is no need to nerf the speed of assaults as Rattati is planning to do because assaults as a whole (not talking about an individual basis) they are balanced right now, and a nerf will only serve to make them underpowered. Nerfing things that are balanced can never be a good thing. While I understand the point you're making, I feel like many people are undervaluing the Assault Bonuses themselves. An Amarr Logistics will not be able to make use of Laser Weapons nearly as well as an Amarr Assault. So if we go under the assumption you made that the speed/hp ratio effectively cancels each other out, would that not place the suits at similar survivability, with the Assault being better at killing due to their Assault bonus, and then the Logistics better at supporting with more equipment and bonuses to support it? Part of this may stem back to the time old issue of Assaults vs Commandos, and partially to the fact that many weapons perform very well, even without Assault Bonuses. I wonder if we did something like put a +1% Racial Damage/lvl bonus on the Assault (5% total) and then reduce damage of light weapons by 5%? Or something to more clearly solidify an Assault's advantage in terms of killing over other suits. This seems like a reasonable line of thought to pursue. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 22:13:00 - [12] - Quote alias lycan wrote: Cross Atu wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: The Min Logi getting its first ever buff? Logi suits and Commando suits, my two primary play styles, are getting a buff? I never thought I would see the day!!! Is the Logi speed buff for movement speed only, or sprint speed as well? Will Logis move faster, but Assaults sprint faster? The Slayer Logi QQ is expected, but you are seriously nerfing yourself by trying to make a Logi perform an Assaults role... I am not worried about killer bees. sprint and strafe speeds are just multipliers off of movement speed, so all go up. As a CPM and thus community rep I feel it important to confirm, publicly and on the record that CCP Rattati is not a sufferer of melissophobia, unlike some poor unfortunates in our community. Rattati wasnt around long enough to remember. The real vets still have scars from the numerous stings. I believe rattati mentioned something about cal logis being punished for old sins. Well the sin was it was the only suit that could have 600 shielding with room to spare. Yeah I remember the old "sins" and how all logi frames were punished for the sins of the Cal racial logi skill. The Cal skill was a bad idea, the following logi nerfs were a bad idea, and the melissophobia then and now remains a bad idea. Scrambler Rifle over performing? Don't nerf the Amarr Assault or Commando to fix it, because that doesn't. Double repped, double hardened armor HAV fits over performing? Don't nerf the base cassias of all HAVs to address an over powered synergy. Myofibs granting more jump than intended, don't nerf the Cal and Min frames slots to block stacked Myos, just address the Myos themselves. TAR killing LAVs at range? Nerfing the native armor regen and base HP of the Gal Assault isn't the proper fix. Cal Logi racial bonus brokenly OP? Should not have resulted in nerfing logistics frames, or even the Cal frame, the bonus should have been fixed. Same with the present day "Assaults have no reason to be run as slayer fits unless they're the best of class in both speed and HP within the medium line" then that right there is a problem. Just like it would be a problem if there was no reason to run a scout unless they had assault HP, or no reason to run a heavy unless they had assault movement speeds. There should be a reason why the assault is the assault that does not require it to have better movement and better HP. The trend of them being inverse is already present in many aspects of the game as we can all see from how the balance between light, medium, and heavy frames works, so if they are truly lacking without having this imbalanced stacking of both then other aspects of the class - like their racial bonuses - really need to be looked into. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 22:21:00 - [13] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Though the next step may be a look a their [Commando] racial skills because rather like the assaults they need some polish regardless. What do you mean by "polish" in this case, Cross, and what specifically do you have in mind? I agree that CA and GA Assault bonuses need improvement, but I'm inclined to disagree that Commando racial skills are lacking. Bonuses to damage and reload speed make the Minmando an exceptional Swarmer. The same can be said for the Calmando as a Sniper. What could possibly be of greater value to these units than +damage and +reload? 100% in favor increasing the Commando's slot count and fitting its mobility to the speed/eHP curve ... but I don't see how their racial bonuses are lacking. What am I missing here? Currently there is an internal imbalance among the commandos, the Min being a leader and the Am generally considered to straggle. If I am completely frank the skills themselves might not need touched at all if we had a full slate of racial weapon offerings such that every racial commando had access to at least; 1. rifle 2. AV 3. zone control/area denial This would allow them to gain the proper degree of synergy between their two LW slot layout and their racial damage bonus. As it currently stands you can do a good job of that with the Min, running Swarm/CR, MD/CR, or even Swarm/MD but end up with the others having silly configurations such as the Cal APEX running Sniper/RR not useless but far from a general utility fit. Sans these weapon offerings the skills themselves may need a second look, what and how much is likely to remain up in the air until the effects of certain things (like the proposed changes to slots and speed) are known. I'd like to say "we should just add the weapons" but I do not know how likely that is to be within reach of the current resources we have available for use. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 22:24:00 - [14] - Quote Booby Tuesdays wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: I get your point, but even if all of the racial assault bonuses actually made a difference (only 2 really do), that still doesn't trump the multitude of equipment slots. Its really about fearing logis being better at slaying, but about logis just simply being better than assaults in a general sense because of disadvantages vs benefits being in favor of the logis. And we totally get that. If you will check the 100+ pages between the Logi threads Cross started, you would know that the intention is not to make Logis more appealing than Assaults to slayers. That is why Cross and Pokey and many others are saying, nerf Logi CPU/PG, increase Equipment fitting cost, and give Logis a better fitting bonus to equipment. This will leave TryHard slayer logi fits gimp in comparison to a good Assault fit. Also reworking the 2 crappy Assault bonuses will go a long ways. ^Yes, all of this. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 22:30:00 - [15] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the qualitative value. I do think the assaults' bonuses are canceled out by the logitics' bonuses, so I don't count it as a point for the worth of assaults vs logistics and their equipment. Anyway, I'm still not convinced the assaults need a speed nerf. I would be alright if it was something small, but the proposal is far too drastic, and undermines the assault's role of being a mobile frontline fighter that rushes objectives. Furthermore, I think the logis would be in a good place with the speed buff without having to nerf assaults. I meant to say "Its NOT really about fearing logis being better at slaying, but about logis just simply being better than assaults in a general sense because of disadvantages vs benefits being in favor of the logis," but I didn't edit the post fast enough. Seems like you know what I meant, but felt I should clarify. Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that if this proposal goes through, that the overall survivability of the suits would be the same. My question for you is, what would need to happen (assuming the speed chamges) to the Assault bonus so that you would feel assault and logistics are of equal worth (including bonuses and equipment) overall? Valid question and much more clearly put than mine. This is the post I should have made in response. Kage, please disregard my prior (I am leaving it for the sake of continuity), and redirect to this one as it focuses much more effectively on what I was attempting to get at. o7 CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 22:36:00 - [16] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Alternative assault bonus suggestions: Cal - reload plus spool reduction. Gal - increase the current dispersion reduction. To be honest, there's no reason why reducing assault speed can't balance the suit, it's just the speed probably shouldn't be reduced as much as proposed. Improving Cal and Gal assault bonuses is more about bringing racial balance to assaults. Thanks for the input on the racial skills. Also, I'd like to take this moment to be utterly clear as I have (obviously) a fair amount of support for the concepts in the OP. I do want to say that I am not focused on specific numbers per se nor trying to argue for or against them, I am simply supporting the fundamental concept of the Speed to HP ratio. As such I am totally open to the idea of specific numbers being honed along the way so long as the fundamental practice remains intact. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 23:00:00 - [17] - Quote True Adamance wrote: One Eyed King wrote: True Adamance wrote: I don't agree with this ideal that speed and HP need to be inversely proportion especially if it takes precedence over the logical attributes of suit roles. As a Logi I don't need to be faster than Assaults. I don't want to out run the guys I am supporting. If anything I want to be as fast as them. As an assault I choose to fit my suit for speed so I can constantly be pressuring my opponents. Having less speed only serves to punish the lower end of the assault speed spectrum. The Amarr Assault was never fast in the first place, why is it being penalised again? Its about roles. Assaults shouldn't be faster than their lower HP counterparts because then it dimishes the point in playing those roles. With HP as it is, with EWAR and speed components as they are, Assaults are over performing. My Std Min Assault is way too fast and effective. Logis need to be a bit faster because they are squishy. They can alternate between sprinting and walking to catch up to sentinels while being able to recharge enough to be evasive if needs be. This makes loads of sense to me. In a conflict do your advance your supply lies faster than your main combat troops? Nope? I didn't think so. The value of the Logisitcs role is in its capacity to support the efforts of other suit not its own combat potential. You are force multiplying by establishing uplinks, nanohives, repairs, revives etc. You should be staying with your squad or the main body of your team to support them not running off to establish equipment is remote positions. That bleeds into the role of scouting. As such there is no need to be able to move faster than your front line combat troops. If we are talking about roles then we should do so logically. As a role the Logistics essentially fills the "Support/Healer" role. This typically is denoted by lesser health, a wide variety of support/heal abilities, and certainly is NOT characterised by excessive speed more so than say the "DPS" role (AKA the Assault). Speed and survivability are NOT combat potential, they are *everything* potential. If you cannot get to a place you cannot act within it no matter the role of the action intended, if you cannot survive you are not on the field to act at all no matter the role of the action intended. A suit with both less speed and less HP than it's near counterparts, or even worse a lower average combined speed+hp value on balance, is going to underperform and essentially be prey, or chum, for those suits with the higher values (or if those suits are completely non-aggressive it can be ignored by them). Currently the logistics and commando frames both suffer from this below average combined speed+hp status meaning in plain terms that they cannot fight or flee effectively, they are also hampered from proper tactical deployment or redeployment. Being fragile but agile is a reasonable opportunity cost, as is being sturdy and slow, but being sluggish and squishy? That's not opportunity cost or balance, that's just poor craftsmanship. As to applying "real world" doctrine to dusts lobby battles, a certain degree of adaptation is required as standard notions of supply lines et al clearly do not apply in the same ways. Besides which, the communications officer in a squad isn't told "you're support, so be less fit, less well armed, and don't bother to bring body armor" even if he's not supposed to be the first one in when breaching a hostile point. He is in fact part of a front line unit and functions as such, but all of that is as arbitrary as saying "because lore" things need to happen for balance within a given context and framework, but that has to be more than notional it has to be fitted to the actual framework the game and code as it stands. In this game the single lobby is the entire theater of engagement and supply is measured in seconds not weeks or months, it demands a different type of assessment. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 23:08:00 - [18] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: demens grimwulff wrote: On a second note... making sure all equipment slots are filled is almost useless, too... Slayer logi with 3 or 4 compact nanohives? Make all equipment slots mandatory + increase CPU/PG fitting bonuses for logis + reduce CPU/PG for logis = plenty of CPU/PG for equipment but not much left for brick tanking and proto weaponry. Been advocating some version of this for months now. Granted some of whether this is viable comes down to the numbers, but I support the general concept. Those logi currently running with full slots shouldn't have their fittings constrained further but taking steps to prevent "equipment free" fittings seems very worth while. Would this put undue strain on early career Logis? Thinking about Cloak and early career Scouts; they usually can't fit it until Level 4. And Cloak isn't as instrumental to Scouting as EQ is to Logi'ing. It's a risk, some of it is down to numbers and some of it will require the use of lower meta gear rather than proto. One aspect to consider here is that in the current game state there is undue strain on early career Logis but that is due to being lackluster at living, having a high SP bar for the diverse bits of equipment, the rather spastic slot progression (leaving the early logi with few equipment slots to even try and perform their main role) and then still having the struggle to fit equipment as it's usually a squeeze even with full fittings skills and full proto skills so prior to that it's a real crunch. The change I mentioned does risk increasing that fittings burden but it gives some redress to others and the SP required to run a full support logi remains the same so even if the early days are still just as rough (though for different reasons) they would at least also come with a bit more of a light at the end of the tunnel. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 23:28:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense just to buff logi eHP and nerf assault eHP? If it fits the HP/speed curve, sure. That's what I mean: logis are too squishy for their role Placing equipment, staying out of lines of fire, and repairing other suits....requires large quantities of HP? I don't think so. Staying out of the line of fire requires speed, and if that "line of fire" is defined by someone wielding a weapon, say an assault with a CR, AR, RR, or SCR, then that "line of fire" can advance on you, meaning your relative speed becomes very relevant indeed. Furthermore placing equipment (in a combat zone), staying out of the lines of fire (while saying directly in the thick of combat to rep and revive) et al most certainly do require some level of HP, what level of HP is directly proportional (inversely) to level of speed in many cases as you need enough speed to GTFO when under fire and enough HP to have sufficient time to employ your allotted amount of speed. Without the minimal levels of combined speed and HP needed to at least flee effectively then any role is in a very poor state indeed. (Sententials can't flee very well, but they still highlight this point as they have enough HP to tank incoming fire and kill the hostile forces, that however is clearly not what we want a support role to do so agility makes sense). CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 23:43:00 - [20] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Well personally I was more a fan of more HP, less speed, better stamina for logi vs assault. But that's just me All I am saying is that I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the Speed vs HP curve. One one end of the spectrum you have your Fast, Low Hp Scouts, on the other your have the Commando and Sentinels Slow and with high HP values. In the middle I am convinced it would be better to have the standardised Medium Frames of the Assault and Logi with similar speeds one having more HP, the other having lower HP in exchange for 3x Equipment Slots and better EWAR. The notion of exchanging survivability (i.e. removing it) in favor of "X other asset" (in this an extra couple equipment slots) is gravely and deeply flawed. If you are not alive you cannot do anything on the field. If there is a disparity in utility then the margins in utility need to be looked out for better balancing. If there is a disparity in survivability then the margins of survivability need to be looked at. The two are not interchangeable. When mobility, HP, et al are combined into eHP there should be (at least approximate) balance between all frames and roles. Once that on the field balance is established so that everyone has a properly balanced window of opportunity to perform their role then looking to the utility of that role, be it slaying, point defense, zones of control, av, resupply, etc. is the next step but no amount of utility value even become relevant if survivability is improperly balanced or insufficient. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 23:56:00 - [21] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: The extra speed would be nice fulfill the support role and keep me alive while doing it XD. I can see your point that if the Logis get the same fitting slot layout and relative fitting power, while still gaining bonuses, I can see them getting the same Speed levels despite the HP despair. The Amarr Logi's Bonus in particular would benefit from a higher movement speed than assaults in order to be able to catch up after placing a good link a bit away from the battle so it won't be found...but that's more of an issue with an infiltrator's equipment on a medic suit And I am not saying they can't or shouldn't have it. Just asking why it requires the Assault suit role to take a hit and why the Logisitcs Class a supporting role needs speed that is above that of your frontline suits. I just don't understand why Logistics cannot achieve all of those other lofty goals that Cross talked about while having an equivalent speed value which is a direct speed buff to Logi while not fundamentally impacting on the Asssault Role. This is, and should be, about more than one role, or even one frame size. This is a game wide assessment of value and reassertion of a currently present premises and trend. Mobility and HP have always had a general inverse relationship within Dust. The very nature of the frames plays to that as do, to a lessor extent, the stat spreads on the racial suits (Amarr high HP and slow, Min low HP and fast). This foundation has been obfuscated by issues with mod balance, fittings, and then further distorted by other alterations and tweaks along the way but it has been with us since closed beta. The proposal in question, fundamentally, simply reaffirms this basic foundation. There is a trade off between speed and raw HP. Ferro plates don't have more HP than standard plates. Shield extenders do not slow you down as much as standard plates do. Armor suits are generally slower than shield suits. Whatever one may say about the proper balance between these mods, or general tanking styles, the fundamental conceptual trend is clear and the OP is advocating adherence to that more fully within the comparative scope of all the roles, scouts on one end of the continuum light and fragile, sentinels on the other heavy and tanked. Assaults should not need to be the exception to this pervasive design rule, and if they cannot function properly without being the exception, then clearly more work needs to be done so that they are in a better place but the need for that work, no matter how grave, does not substantiate the notion that they should be an exemption from the fundamental concept prevalent throughout the rest of the game. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.27 23:59:00 - [22] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: Speed is definately very important for a logi to perform the support role. So I totally disagree with all the "logi's don't need to be faster than their squad mates" people. I think I have been phasing it incorrectly. What I should have been saying is "Why do assaults need to be slower than you in order for you to Logi properly?". E.G- The difference between the sprinting speed of the Amarr Assault and the Amarr Logi is 0.35 m/s. [Amarr Logi = 6.37 , Amarr Assault = 6.72 meters per second unmodified by skills]. Where is the harm of standardizing their mobility values so that both move apace. If both also have the same base HP so that the proper Speed to HP ratio design of the game is affirmed then there is none. Though I personally lean towards a balance that is less homogenous so as to provide a bit more diversity in content within the game. But no, there is no balance implication/harm of maintaining equal survivability within the medium frames by giving them both identical speed and HP values. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 00:06:00 - [23] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Perhaps I should just wait and see. I find there nothing to complain about while running Logistics over Assault. I accept I am playing the support healer role and that typically results in less HP than tank or DPS counterparts. And in Dust less HP typically results in more mobility (or vice versa) as can be observed in how the frames relate to each other, the HP mods relate to each other, and the tanking types relate to each other. Net result, the OP. Where the dps type assault has more HP than it's - more mobile - support counterpart. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 00:52:00 - [24] - Quote Kalante Schiffer wrote: None of their bonuses are something that helps them you know... assault! I am sorry but the reload and dispersion bonuses are not cutting the cheese for cal and gall assaults. Now they get nerfed. The assault class has no identity it doesn't know what they are. No good bonuses, some of the weapons for each race do not even excel nor work properly with their own suits. Like, example the Rail rifle currently is being wielded by gall assaults such as myself because i know it is a much better option than to use an assault rifle. I have zero business to use a duvolle on my gall assault because it is just not worth it other than for fun. When it comes to PC in a competitive setting that is where everything changes. Play styles change, suits change, weapon's personality changes. Why? why would i not use the gall's racial weapon in a competitive setting? because... it sucks. Simple as that. To use an AR on a gallente and shoot what it feels like a bb gun against a wall of tanked out proto heavies with infinite reps.The weapon even in CQC even though it is a CQC weapon it gets owned by the RR and CR. The racial bonus for it is just not good enough to help. Whilst my rail rifle in my gall assault it can get the job done against armor at close, medium, and long range so why should i bother to use a duvolle? i could go on and on about the caldari and ammar but that is just my thoughts of how the assault class as right now they have no identity, we do not even got their racial bonuses right much less what their role in the battle field is. To me they are currently just there to fill the game with content and that's about it. A rather vivid description of why the racial assault skills need to be revisited. Wouldn't hurt to have a clear vision on how light weapons, especially the rifle types, are supposed to work 'naked' compared with how they should work when optimized by synergy with their proper racial assault. +1 well said CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 02:08:00 - [25] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Then by your statement, caldari as a race in dust is broken. They can not GTFO. They have neither the hp to tank effectively against armor or the speed/stamina/agility to outrun the amarr or minmatar, and soon perhaps the gallente. If the caldari are to be at the mercy of tougher, more damaging, longer lasting, faster opponents, it seems they will spend the majority of their time defending themselves from attack rather than attacking. I would assume then, that caldari would have superior defensive capabilities. Yet most players would say this isn't the case. If you are speaking of a heads up fire fight you must also include dps output and force projection. I mentioned neither of these within the context of my prior post because they are by role meant to be lessor from logi than assault so it was implicit that the logi would lose on those metrics, it was further the context of my post to generally compare values within races rather than between races by and large. But if we wanted to play out the situation, having a cal assault vs a min assault both using ARs (so no racial skills applied), neither running damage mods (so no distortion of the damage profile applies), and both having the same HP values including mods, then yes presuming the min still held a higher level of mobility after consideration of it's fitted mods, but did so while meeting the HP value of the Cal, I would say the Cal is under-performing in that context. However the situation you outline is not the one we find in the game, nor is it a direct application to the prior post I made because it introduces the added effects of things like ranged application of dps, and thus draws in the effects of things like optimal and falloff damage applications. Much like the ability of the scout to survive by moving quickly, use of a RR (let alone SR) allows survival via distance from the point of conflict while still doing damage to the hostile forces. Support actions by contrast (aside from arguably scanning) cannot be done in that manner. You cannot rep someone from RR range, you cannot deploy foothold uplinks for dynamic map mobility from a shooters perch, you cannot apply ammo nanites to a squad mate at sniper range. Where as the faction fit ck.0 wielding a RR certainly can kill an ak.0 or gk.0 outside of their racial weapons optimal range, which is not a very defense oriented action all things considered None of which is to say that armor vs shield balance, rifle balance, or racial balance are perfect, but they certainly do have conceptual trends to advise them clearly and those trends certainly do not conflict with the base method of an inverse relationship between raw HP and speed. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 02:09:00 - [26] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Kalante Schiffer wrote: None of their bonuses are something that helps them you know... assault! I am sorry but the reload and dispersion bonuses are not cutting the cheese for cal and gall assaults. Now they get nerfed. The assault class has no identity it doesn't know what they are. No good bonuses, some of the weapons for each race do not even excel nor work properly with their own suits. Like, example the Rail rifle currently is being wielded by gall assaults such as myself because i know it is a much better option than to use an assault rifle. I have zero business to use a duvolle on my gall assault because it is just not worth it other than for fun. When it comes to PC in a competitive setting that is where everything changes. Play styles change, suits change, weapon's personality changes. Why? why would i not use the gall's racial weapon in a competitive setting? because... it sucks. Simple as that. To use an AR on a gallente and shoot what it feels like a bb gun against a wall of tanked out proto heavies with infinite reps.The weapon even in CQC even though it is a CQC weapon it gets owned by the RR and CR. The racial bonus for it is just not good enough to help. Whilst my rail rifle in my gall assault it can get the job done against armor at close, medium, and long range so why should i bother to use a duvolle? i could go on and on about the caldari and ammar but that is just my thoughts of how the assault class as right now they have no identity, we do not even got their racial bonuses right much less what their role in the battle field is. To me they are currently just there to fill the game with content and that's about it. A rather vivid description of why the racial assault skills need to be revisited. Wouldn't hurt to have a clear vision on how light weapons, especially the rifle types, are supposed to work 'naked' compared with how they should work when optimized by synergy with their proper racial assault. +1 well said Yea but I'll point out that the situation was again an instance of expecting an anti shield weapon to perform competively against armor suits using anti armor weapons. Too much armor and not enough shield targets Not at all opposed to the balance between armor and shields being looked at. Actually I tend to favor a review of it. But that is outside the scope of this thread as it has no pertinence to the OP. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 02:21:00 - [27] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: True Adamance wrote: It appears that you still have no presented a reason why the logi needs to be 'faster' than the assault No two factors affect survivability more than HP and Speed. Where both are low, we find underpowered units. Where both are high, we find overpowered units. Where one is low, and the other is high we find balanced units (all else held constant). It stands to reason that a tradeoff should exist between these two survivability factors. Out-of-the-box, a Logi has 200HP less than its Assault counterpart. This alone is sufficient reason, in my opinion, for them to be faster than Assaults. Yet in eve, logis have more eHP and are far slower. Balanced yes? And far more ability to apply force projection to their support activities. If a dust logi could lock and rep targets at sniper ranges being slow would pose far less of an issue. Also EVE logi don't have any limiter (eWar aside) beyond range for their applications, there are no LoS considerations merely a question of range within the theater of engagement and a HUD that allows application of support without moving around find, face, etc the recipient (also better locking mechanics, and a battle environment in which generally speaking weapons must lock before they are fired). DeathwindRising wrote: Then why were the "killer bees" a problem? The had more hp than assaults and were slower, which exactly what they're going back to. The difference between a logi in eve and a logi in dust is that logis in eve don't have anywhere near the offensive capabilities of assaults. Their dps is non existent. True, the other difference is that they have massively more powerful support actions. When was the last time a single dust logi, or a dust logi pair, could out rep the incoming damage of multiple simultaneous sources of incoming fire, so much so that "primary the logi" wasn't just a tactical choice but almost an outright necessity. I've said before, and will happily reiterate here, that I will lay down all weapons in a heart beat, having no guns of any kind on the logi suit if it means the ability to apply shield and armor reps with EVE level magnitude and range. DeathwindRising wrote: In dust though lol, they have exactly the same dps as assaults. An assault with an AR and a logi with an AR deal the same exact damage. That's why we had problems with scouts being better assaults too months ago. CCP doesn't want to give weapon damage bonuses to separate offensive roles from defensive or support roles. It's inaccurate to say they have the same damage profile as assaults, an Amarr logi with a scrambler rifle or LR cannot get as much sustained dps out of it as an Amarr assault despite the weapon itself having the same base stats. Now I fully and readily grant that the racial skills tide to the assault could use a look and some polish as long standing consensus seems to be that they are lack luster (much as the logi and commando frames are) but as much as that mechanic needs a look and some love it doesn't change the validity of the speed to HP ratio. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 02:41:00 - [28] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Then why were the "killer bees" a problem? The had more hp than assaults and were slower, which exactly what they're going back to. Will a Logi built to slay truly have more HP than an Assault built to slay? If so, how? Their base HP are separated by a 200HP spread. Not to mention, fitting restrictions and recovery rates. It'd be nice if we could get Cyrus to wire up protofits for test builds! Edit: The last thing I want to see is a return of Slayer Scouts or Slayer Logis. If this is even a remote possibility, I'd fully support implementing harsher plate penalties for one or both classes. I believe this can be done, as it's been done before with Scouts and armor-plate strafe penalty. The cal logi has an extra low slot and pg mods have been moved to high slots. Stack armor then supplement with shield extenders for a bricked dual tank. So it may be possible to just brick it Understood. Ignoring speed for now, I'm getting: Logi ck.0 HS: Cmp Shield (x4), Basic PG LS: Cmp Ferro (x4) PW: Pro Rail GR: Basic Flux EQ: Pro Hive, Empty, Empty 958 HP (515/443), 0 free CPU, 7 free PG Assault ck.0 HS: Cmp Shield (x4), Cmp PG LS: Cmp Ferro (x3) PW: Pro Rail SW: Adv Bolt GR: Basic Flux EQ: Pro Hive 1058 HP (617/441), 52 free CPU, 1 free PG I completely agree that the HP spread between these units is too close, especially if the Logi is substantially faster than the Assault. Ideas, Cross? This is part of why I advocate the Cal logi getting a 4th equipment slot and losing that extra Low Slot. It is also why despite my usual inclinations I would actually support a requirement that logi fill their equipment slots. Between the two I think we'll see a different profile. (Note, compact hives play a bit of havoc with this but they likely need toned down anyway so assume for current fittings that only one compact hive can be used to fill an EQ slot when filling all required slots. To make it easy to use current proto fits just fill the three slots present, leave the one Low Power slot empty and make sure there is enough remaining fitting to accommodate a compact hive thus simulating that 4th equipment slot). CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 03:41:00 - [29] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Logi ck.0 HS: Cmp Shield (x4), Basic PG LS: Cmp Ferro (x4) PW: Pro Rail GR: Basic Flux EQ: Pro Hive, Empty, Empty 958 HP (515/443), 0 free CPU, 7 free PG Assault ck.0 HS: Cmp Shield (x4), Cmp PG LS: Cmp Ferro (x3) PW: Pro Rail SW: Adv Bolt GR: Basic Flux EQ: Pro Hive 1058 HP (617/441), 52 free CPU, 1 free PG I completely agree that the HP spread between these units is too close, especially if the Logi is substantially faster than the Assault. Ideas, Cross? This is part of why I advocate the Cal logi getting a 4th equipment slot and losing that extra Low Slot. It is also why despite my usual inclinations I would actually support a requirement that logi fill their equipment slots. Between the two I think we'll see a different profile. (Note, compact hives play a bit of havoc with this but they likely need toned down anyway so assume for current fittings that only one compact hive can be used to fill an EQ slot when filling all required slots. To make it easy to use current proto fits just fill the three slots present, leave the one Low Power slot empty and make sure there is enough remaining fitting to accommodate a compact hive thus simulating that 4th equipment slot). If we swap out the CalLogi's extra Low Slot for +1 EQ, the above loadout weighs in at 875 HP. That's ~20% less HP than the similarly fit Assault, and the Logi will be ~9% faster (assuming speeds on Page 1). As a point of reference, scout base mobility is presently ~8% removed from that of Assault at a base HP spread in excess of 200%. To me, this tanky CalLogi's HP (even at -1 Low) still seems too close to a similarly fit CalAssault. Logis aren't my field though. What am I missing? I may be misreading, but Rattati also mentions here normalizing fitting capacity to help the CalLogi. Check again, even without including the requirement to fit a 4th slot the logi fitting outlined above is invalid, and that is with proto fits assuming max skills. To fit the logi from above as outlined, assuming the proper change to 4th slot (and using only a compact hive in that slot) requires fitting only one basic ferro in the lows. Actual total HP when corrected for valid fit, including all skill buffs; 666 HP (515/151) or 292 below prior listed total. That's 392 HP below the values listed for the Assault. So that's ~37.05% lower than the assault. We also have to consider Stamina and Stamina regeneration as well, because the Min for all it's speed wouldn't be very mobile if not for it's comparative Sta totals. And the Cal scout, for example, has 25 more base Sta, and 10 more base regen. So that scout has the ~8% movement speed you mentioned, but it also has ~22.5% more Sta and ~33% more regen. Honestly I'm not sure applying a simple % Delta change is the most accurate way to approach this, but if it is then we shouldn't be comparing Scout to Assault, we should be establishing a use case baseline by comparing Scout to Sentinel then the values could be scaled within each race. But even that raises the question, if % shift is the thing to look at, is that % shift the same for each race? Should it be? Should it not be? How much % deviation between the races is acceptable? Then compare the two differing % shifts there. Also, these shifts are, if derived from fully fitted frames, including a question of slot values which - while certainly a valid consideration - adds another layer of complexity. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 16:40:00 - [30] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: So what's the bridge going to be between the Scout and the Assault after this? What if I want a suit that has mobility without as much of an EHP hit of a Scout and EHP without the mobility hit of the Assault? What am I supposed to run as the bridge point between the two..? Slayer-Logi? EDIT: Because if I have to, that's what I'm going to do. Provided that logi uses all of it's (soon to be required) equipment slots, then yes I think that's where things will land based on the current proposed changes we're seeing. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 17:14:00 - [31] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Assault vs slayer logi You will have to replace that ferroscale plate on the logi for a cardiac regulator for a fair comparison. With the proposed changes you could fit a complex plate on the logi instead of a reactive and have similar movement speeds. The assault will still have more hp and stamina, and a sidearm. The logi will have lots of nice equipment. The assault will have much better sprint speed. I still think you'd be better off slaying in the assault. It's outside the scope of this proposal but the assault should also have meaningful racial bonuses to assaulting (i.e. to it's dps levels). The assault role is defined by it's slayer ability, that hinges on weapon slots, the logistics role hinges on it's support ability which is dependent on equipment slots. Both require utility slots to stay alive and functional. The frequent misconception is that there's an issue when the logi can survive in combat/get from place to place, as if that base utility hampers the assault role. It is not the logi being viable that is an issue, it is the assault having lack luster role definition/supporting mechanics. Give effective racial skills that provide the assault with lethality and they'll perform their role quite nicely, rather than relying on other roles/suits to be gimped just so they can function (as is currently the case). CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 17:27:00 - [32] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: It's outside the scope of this proposal but the assault should also have meaningful racial bonuses to assaulting (i.e. to it's dps levels). What you mean like Commandos? Depends on what you mean by "like Commandos" specifically but yes, the Commando also has a role largely/currently defined by slayer ability. This is actually a long standing issue derived from earlier design choices because the precepts of those two roles overlap so heavily. That unfortunate "legacy quandary" aside, as a general method I'd say yes, assaults should have something like commandos in the sense of racial bonuses that give them better than standard dps output with their racial weapons. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 17:33:00 - [33] - Quote Cyrus Grevare wrote: Hi Folks, On the process of adding temporary items to protofits.com, basically the base dropsuits going through CCP Rattati's rebalancing efforts starting with logistics. Doing them one at a time for those interested and avid users of the site. Since some skills need changing I'm temporarily modifying the skills too (as in 10% PG/CPU reduction for eq. for logistics instead of 5%, etc) Regards ^This man, give him all your likes CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 17:59:00 - [34] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: {Forum says I have too many quotes, content cut to allow posting} Yep, as I sated prior there's an issue when it comes to the overlap between Commandos and Assault as far as their base precept and role. Frankly in an FPS there is a fundamental issue with any suit being "the slayer suit", you cannot have a single role be "the one that's good at killing" in a game that is largely based around killing. Just like you cannot have one role be "the one with good survival" (i.e. higher than average speed vs eHP ratio) in an fps style environment. When defining a foundational method we specifically cannot allow "who's taking the hits" to define the application of the method. The method - whatever that may be - must be considered and stand or fall on it's own merits. If it stands it must be applied, as stated, game wide. If any of these things fail to transpire we are once again reverted to the prior aimlessness of design that has plagued Dust for much (if not most) of his history starting in closed beta. If you, or anyone, has a problem with the method or sees flaws within the method then by all means please bring them forward. I don't care if it's this method that is being commented on or another, feedback on the subject is something I firmly support because good methods are important. What cannot be abided is allowing bias towards one role, play style, or any form of sub-group to distorted or redefine base level game wide methodology. To allow that is by definition to engender imbalance as the very context for balance ceases to be an actual game wide mechanic. I totally get that it's frustrating to be three years deep and still waiting for balance, I'm just as frustrated by that as anyone (maybe more than some because it drives my OCD crazy) but that is exactly why we need baseline methods and sooner rather than later regardless of the short term sting of ripping the bandaid off. Because without those foundations to build upon, we won't just be waiting for another three years to see balance in Dust, we'll be waiting all the way until the servers shut down no matter how long the game runs. In short, frustrated or not, having a cohesive game design that allows for fundamental balance to finally replace the back and forth we've dealt with for years trumps any particular current effects those changes have on you, me, or any specific sub-facet of the game. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 18:54:00 - [35] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: In short, frustrated or not, having a cohesive game design that allows for fundamental balance to finally replace the back and forth we've dealt with for years trumps any particular current effects those changes have on you, me, or any specific sub-facet of the game. 0.02 ISK Easy to say. Harder to live with. Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: -I don't want to live with lower strafe speed-. That's the entire premise here. I'll take an EHP hit but I like the movement speed where it's at. How can anyone say this with the massive hit detection issues currently in game ?! Again. Mobility is king in CQC. All the EHP in the world won't matter if they can hit you but you can't hit them. Easy or hard it's is an objective reality and we either live with that or live with continued imbalance until the servers burn out. I have yet to see any evidence which indicates there is a viable long term third option. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 19:36:00 - [36] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: The third option is obvious. Buff the other stuff and take the balance changes slow. Make your buffs, gather data and move on from there. It's hardly a massive operation to tweak a couple numbers later after gathering data. That is literally not able to be an alternative to what I was talking about. Specific changes nerf or buff, to any given aspect can be part of a base method, or can happen absent a base method but in no case are they an alternative to a choice between having a base method or not. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 19:40:00 - [37] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Buff the other stuff .... If Assaults were held constant and all else balanced around them, then we'd have to buff Scout HP potential or Speed. This isn't a popular idea, and it shouldn't be. Buffing Scout movement or sprint speed would very likely cause hit detection issues. Buffing Scout HP (or adding to its slot count) could bring about another round of 1.8 Assault Lite. In my opinion, balancing Scouts around High Mobility, High HP Assaults would cause more problems than it would solve. But eHp isn't on the table, it's speed. I wouldn't mind assaults having LOGI health if their speed remained. I'll say it again: Not taking damage trumps having more damage to take. Establishing a proper baseline inverse ratio between eHP and speed is the purpose and point. The method for doing it is currently talking about tweaks to speed not HP but the goal is the proper ratio. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 21:21:00 - [38] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: But balance in what way? CCP Rattati wrote: The designs need to make sense, intuitively. In order of priority, imagine a pyramid Slot progression needs to make sense, within roles and between roles PG/CPU capacity as they relate to slots and their layout HP and Speed are inverse, that's just physics and again intuitive These 3 principles form the foundation for Dropsuits. While they don't make sense, all the small things on top don't really matter. That's why I am not tackling role bonuses, because the foundation is cracked and not worth building on. CCP Rattati wrote: The rules of thumb as applied to the Medium class now: Mobility (stamina pool and recovery) CA/GA = normal Amarr= 5% lower Minmatar = 5% higher Sprint Basic = normal = 1.4x Logistics = normal-0.1 = 1.3x Assault = normal+0.1 = 1.5x eHP Basic = normal Logistics = lower Assault = higher Speed Basic = normal Logistics = higher Assault = lower Or if one wishes to be over focused on purely the logi assault contrast CCP Rattati wrote: Logis need to be able to get out of danger, and follow their friends even if the logi is brick tanked for the occasion. A non tanked Logi can barely keep up with a brick assault right now. But the simple goal is that things make sense game wide, one method for all roles and when it comes to survivability that everyone has enough of it to preform their roles rather than be "chum" for the "sharks" to feed off of without concern. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 22:19:00 - [39] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The designs need to make sense, intuitively. In order of priority, imagine a pyramid Slot progression needs to make sense, within roles and between roles PG/CPU capacity as they relate to slots and their layout HP and Speed are inverse, that's just physics and again intuitive These 3 principles form the foundation for Dropsuits. While they don't make sense, all the small things on top don't really matter. That's why I am not tackling role bonuses, because the foundation is cracked and not worth building on. CCP Rattati wrote: The rules of thumb as applied to the Medium class now: Mobility (stamina pool and recovery) CA/GA = normal Amarr= 5% lower Minmatar = 5% higher Sprint Basic = normal = 1.4x Logistics = normal-0.1 = 1.3x Assault = normal+0.1 = 1.5x eHP Basic = normal Logistics = lower Assault = higher Speed Basic = normal Logistics = higher Assault = lower CCP Rattati wrote: Logis need to be able to get out of danger, and follow their friends even if the logi is brick tanked for the occasion. A non tanked Logi can barely keep up with a brick assault right now. But the simple goal is that things make sense game wide, one method for all roles and when it comes to survivability that everyone has enough of it to preform their roles rather than be "chum" for the "sharks" to feed off of without concern. I'm not saying that there is nothing valid about this argument, in fact I have already stated that logi suits SHOULD have a speed boost. In fact I would have no issues with them having better tank and slightly less speed than assaults, or vise versa, but dropping assault speed isn't going to do anything apart from marginalizing the suit all over again. You can have a curve and not seperate them by so much. You can plop logi suits between assaults and scouts on your chart without sliding the assault down the scale. Strafe speed is a necessity for a combat oriented suit and you don't get much more combat oriented than what was always purported to be the 'jack of all trades' frontlines suit. I've seen the argument before from the other side of the fence, the 'balance everything around my suit' argument and that is not what I'm going for here. What I'm saying is that the gunplay mechanics in this game require strafing ability and the assault is where it needs to be in this area already. Sprint speed is an open topic, but for combat efficacy it's strafe speed needs to remain as it is or it will simply become a cover-to-cover fighter for everyone except kb/m users. This may not be an issue for Ratatti since he is one, but for the vast majority of players that I feel justified in assuming use ds3 input, this is a drastic change that makes a world of difference. If logi suits need to have more maneuverability and less tank than assaults I can understand that. Swap stamina models with assaults and logi suits and plop them equal or above assault suits on your chart. Or put their walk speed below assaults and their sprint above. I can see the merit of having a baseline means of scaling speed and eHp, but I simply don't see how it is important to keep a speed teir looking pretty on a chart when the chart itself has no direct correlation to balanced gunplay for combat classes and there is no evidence to suggest that it has one.[/quote] Just to be clear I'm not sold on, nor advocating, any specific numbers. While I do have my preferences on where logi fall within the intended ratio I'm not even advocating that. The main, perhaps only, thing I'm advocating is that the ratio be a thing so there is a universal foundation applied equitably to all roles. Even though I have my preferences any result that maintains a proper eHP vs speed ratio for all roles is one I'd find acceptable. I don't think this single change will bring the game fully into balance, but I do think having a sensible foundation like that to draw from is important and that any imbalances which are exposed in the light of it are things that likely already need to be addressed even if they are currently obfuscated by circumstance. The chart itself AFAIK is for illustrative purposes, and I certainly cannot comment on it's details as I did not create it nor have I see specific numbers beyond what it present in the OP, but like I say it's not the chart or the specific numbers I'm invested in or advocating, my sole 'skin in the game' here is to support a rational method be foundationally applied to every role equally. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.28 22:58:00 - [40] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: "I'm going to switch to logi because it will be a better slayer." -random tryhard and Aeon Amadi wrote: -I don't want to live with lower strafe speed-. That's the entire premise here. I'll take an EHP hit but I like the movement speed where it's at. Translation: I am going to use whichever suit has the higher base movement speed because the hit detection evasion ability in DUST due to poor hit detection is a crutch I cannot live without! Why if all the plebians can actually HIT me consistently my precious KD rating might suffer badly! Here's a hint kids, Strafe breaking hit detection is very real. i demonstrated the technique to cross, did it to him in a minassault, a galassault, calassault and a galmando, and walked him through how to replicate it. He succeeded. I used it to rip the crap out of Cat Merc, who is arguably a lot better at gun game than I am. The strafe speed thing is a hit detection exploit, deliberate abuse of unintended behavior in game design to gain an unfair advantage. it is especially effective for people with high latency, allowing them to consistently flush the ability to hit them properly. I cannot use the strafe exploit because I use the M/KB, because the wiggle dance is DEPENDENT upon Aim Assist, which allows reticle magnetism to briefly attach to the target and grant you a precious second of firing time on target with each pass, if you time it and fire in bursts, you can literally appear as a gun-game god among the masses. M/KB players cannot enjoy aim assist, it is excluded from our control scheme. Therefore, people who wiggle are vastly more effective against so-called "mouse cheaters." But by all means, blame the controls, claim that strafing isn't broken when it can verifiably be proven broken. Any asshat who bothers to follow my helpful newbie guide will rapidly figure out how to do the exact same thing. So please, go on, keep telling everyone that juking back and forth like an epileptic is a measurement of skill. Keep sitting on that crutch of wierdly-behaving netcode and hit detection and say exploiting it takes skill. By all means. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Fixing hit detection and implementation of a system that takes weight into account when changing directions is an absolute must, but that doesn't excuse these changes. I would take the former over any changes that could possibly be made to the game, but pushing an entire class into brick tanking because some people do douchey stuff doesn't really fix anything, it just makes them do douchey stuff in other suits. Alert me when there's an announcement about weight being added, I'll be all over it. I don't even remotely agree that the proposed rational method needs "excused" but I do whole heartedly agree that fixing hit detection, improving control input time (i.e. removing input lag), and adding an inertia/mass/weight mechanic such that being able to exploit the system like that is no longer possible. I fully advocate a universally applied speed vs HP method regardless, but even without such a method the listed fixes are sorely needed and having them would improve the game mightily. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.29 06:14:00 - [41] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: And you guys wonder why I'm argumentative and confrontational. So it's our fault that you throw fits and get yourself ignored. Got it. But now that your head is clear ... may I ask? Ask what? In your response to Cross, you say "take the cautious approach" ... please elaborate. What do you have in mind? Ah. That. Sorry, only read the first part of your post. I dunno, #stuffI'vealreadysaid. Like, buffing Commandos/Logis first and seeing how that works before nerfing Assaults. As I've said every time it comes up the only "skin in the game" I have is that the ratio itself be maintained as a game wide foundation (or if a case is solidly built against it that the ratio be abandoned as a game wide thing when it comes to balancing roles, mods, races et al). I have no stake whatsoever in what those ratios are or which role falls where within them so long as the ratios are applied universally and equally. Without a universal and equal application of foundational vision (be it this method or another) that applies to all roles rather than cherry picks a few things, balance becomes either a bad zero sum game or a crapshoot and we stay in the same rut we've been in for years. To get more specific in reference to one of your prior posts, if speed, especially even a single metric of speed (be that strafe/move, sprint, or other) is enough to outweigh dps potential and raw HP then that to me screams that there is a large and fundamental problem. In the context of the ratio method, if speed really is this huge of a factor then the amount of eHP set to counter balance it needs to be scaled up accordingly until it is no longer meaningless and dismissible and *the same ratio - whatever that may be - needs to be applied to all roles*. Make heavies fly like hot air balloons, scouts sparkle like unicorns, assaults have 1k HP per 1m of sprint speed, and logi slower than commandos for all I care, so long as there is a solid and universally applied method so that we have a context to actually and finally get some balance build rather than just the latest iteration of "king of the hill" FotM chasing. Having one role/fit be "the thing" is bad balance it doesn't matter if that's the Cal Logi, the Amarr Sent, the Gal Scout, or the Min Assault. One role, or even worse one racial sub role, or still worse one fit type, being "the thing" is bad balance and always needs to die in fire. And without a consistent universal method it is harder to see that coming, takes longer to see it when it's present, and is an impediment to finding an effective solution that isn't just "nerf it into the ground" which is IMO never the ideal way to redress something being OP. If the major concern here is "don't touch any assault numbers except maybe the min assault" then sure fine, touch none of them and simply balance the stats on all the other suits around the assault baseline, doesn't bother me in the least, just maintain a consistent and even handed approach game wide, because failing to do that is quite simply failing the health and quality of the game. Lack of consistent vision is a large part of what got us into this mess as we've both pointed out more than once, we've had years of it, time to give up on half measures and special cases, we need a consistent method or we're not going to get out of the messes we've been dealing with. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.29 06:31:00 - [42] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: I dunno Added "Not Aeon's Idea": > Google Doc < * Decrease Assault base HP by 25% * Decrease MN Assault base movement from 5.3 to 5.2 * Set Logi base movement / sprint = Assault base movement / sprint Spitballing, of course. What do you think? Tweaked the Idea above to better fit the curve ... * Assault Base HP: -25% * MN Assault Base Movement: 5.30 ---> 5.00 (-5.7%) * GA Assault Base Movement: 5.00 ---> 4.85 (-3%) * CA Assault Base Movement: 5.00 ---> 4.85 (-3%) * AM Assault Base Movement: 4.80 ---> 4.70 (-2.1%) * MN Logi Base Movement: 5.00 ---> 5.20 (+4%) * GA Logi Base Movement: 4.70 ---> 5.00 (+6.4%) * CA Logi Base Movement: 4.70 ---> 5.00 (+6.4%) * AM Logi Base Movement: 4.55 ---> 4.80 (+5.5%) * No changes to Sprint Multipliers Assumptions Armor/Shield Regen: Assault > Logi > Scout Stamina Pool: Scout > Assault > Logi Stamina Regen: Scout > Assault > Logi Thoughts? Maybe it's the migraine causing my brain to fail but having three roles using one consistent ratio/method to define them all (thus having balance) cannot yield those hierarchical results, can it? If we convert your assumptions section into a simple numeric comparison by rank value we get Armor/Shield Regen: 3 pts Assault > 2 pts Logi > 1pt Scout Stamina Pool: 3pts Scout > 2pts Assault > 1pt Logi Stamina Regen: 3pts Scout > 2pts Assault > 1pt Logi Net results: Scout 8pts > Assault 7pts > Logi 4pts That's not a consistently applied ratio with two out of the three listed roles doubling (or nearly doubling) the third role. No matter what role is in that third slot we're failing the method and thus failing balance. This situation gets even worse if there other roles added at or below the 4 pt threshold (or lower) or frankly just the more roles that are added at all because whether low or high added roles (which clearly do exist in the game) simply push the outliers further out be that UP or OP (or worst, cases of both). Is there some way in which I have misapplied the conceptual aspects here? CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.29 17:32:00 - [43] - Quote Haerr wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Stuff You left out HP Pool and Movement Speed, and you are overvaluing Stamina Pool and Stamina Regen. (No module will give you +0.45 movement speed but 1 module will give +100% Stamina AND +100% Stamina Regen.) Besides if you are going to start comparing the value different suits stats you'll need a baseline and then assign a value to each attribute (module slot per benefit would be a decent enough start since the different modules already have an assign value by CCP), that way you can calculate the combined stats of a suit as a single value. (Though it will be incomplete since there isn't an assigned value for high/low to eq and/or weapon slot conversions.) Not sure which post you're responding to here but if it was the one with the fittings I didn't work those up I just spot checked them on proto fits. If it was another you're going to have to point out which one so I have context for what you are talking about. I haven't, to my knowledge, applied a specific comparative value between HP,, walk speed, sprint speed, sta, sta regen, et al In fact I have specifically and repeatedly stated that I am not doing that very thing. I care about an equitable and universal ratio being established and have tried to respond to others within the contexts they present, but I don't claim to have the numbers for what every aspect of that ratio should be tuned to. Please elaborate on what you are replying to. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.29 18:20:00 - [44] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: ... Armor/Shield Regen: 3 pts Assault > 2 pts Logi > 1pt Scout Stamina Pool: 3pts Scout > 2pts Assault > 1pt Logi Stamina Regen: 3pts Scout > 2pts Assault > 1pt Logi Net results: Scout 8pts > Assault 7pts > Logi 4pts Is there some way in which I have misapplied the conceptual aspects here? Possibly, yes, but only it relates to your point system illustration. If each characteristic were equally weighted against the next, and all characteristics were being tallied for simultaneous evaluation, then an equal-point distribution system would make alot of sense. But all characteristics do not share a 1:1 relationship, the ability to enhance characterstics do not share a 1:1 relationship, and not all characteristics are being simultaneously evaluated. (Hope that makes sense ... if not, I can reword). Observation At the most fundamental level, the attributes which affect survivability by greatest degree are Speed and HP. Units which are able to simultaneously achieve high values of both become FoTM. It isn't just about mobility or MN Scouts would be FoTM; it isn't just about HP or AM Sentinels would be FoTM. Speed is indeed more heavily weighted than HP, but FoTM still requires high values of both. If a tradeoff model between HP and Speed existed, units would be less readily able to simultaneously achieve both high speed and high HP. Opinion In my personal opinion, we should move forward with a tradeoff model between the primary attributes Base Movement and Base HP. As Rattati has suggested, doing so would give us a solid, rational foundation to work from. Having established that framework, we can then tweak whatever other attributes are on the table (i.e. sprint multipliers, stamina stats, regen stats, strafe stats, etc) to safeguard against role bleed. Sure they are not all 1:1 I completely agree, but you weren't providing numeric values for any of them and the implied context (due to the subject of the thread) is having a ratio which applies them in a functionally equal measure. I wasn't saying 1m sprint speed = 1 HP armor, I was saying "in a properly defined ratio of speed to HP as is proposed by the OP no one role should have the highest combined average rank in all input factors". I agree with the Observation section of your above quote and that is one of the key premise upon which my support for a ratio is predicated (another being that such a ratio concept already exists throughout the game in various forms but the lack of a universal method for it causes the balance value to be moderate to minimal depending on case). CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.29 18:31:00 - [45] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: As I've said every time it comes up the only "skin in the game" I have is that the ratio itself be maintained as a game wide foundation (or if a case is solidly built against it that the ratio be abandoned as a game wide thing when it comes to balancing roles, mods, races et al). I have no stake whatsoever in what those ratios are or which role falls where within them so long as the ratios are applied universally and equally. Without a universal and equal application of foundational vision (be it this method or another) that applies to all roles rather than cherry picks a few things, balance becomes either a bad zero sum game or a crapshoot and we stay in the same rut we've been in for years. -continued- [formatting is off because I wrote this in notepad] Took me a few reads to fully understand what you're saying but I think I've got a rudimentary understanding of it. You want balanced role, mods, races and if a case be made to go against a foundation or design that it be solidly, logically built as a justifiable reason to go against the base methods. Without an equal application of foundational vision that applies to everything, you feel that the balancing act becomes a shot in the dark at what works. This is a fair outline of my general view yes. I don't feel this is the case because we have done some pretty awesome stuff with balance without trying to have everything on a curve or having trade-offs, and trying to adhere to that may work logically and mathematically but a video game isn't all about logic or math, but sometimes how something -feels- You feel as though speed being enough to outweigh DPS potential and raw HP is a fundamental problem. I feel that this stems from different views on what Assaults actually are designed for, which is a consequence of it not having a pre-determined role. It's abstract and left to interpretation, but neither of our interpretations are necessarily wrong and they shouldn't be viewed as wrong. Agreed, neither interpretation is necessarily wrong which is a firm highly of why a foundational method is needed and how without one we are shooting in the dark. Or perhaps more specifically said, we are all shooting at differing marks and treating them as if they are the same target. Either way it doesn't lend itself to solid stable work or well advised player choices in game (which in turn creates justifiable frustration when someone skills into a suit or weapon for a given play style only to have it altered in ways that make it no longer valid/useful for that playstyle). This has always been the case but it's not something we can fix. Hit detection issues are and have always been prevailant and yes, it's something we take advantage of -because- it is viable and is a fundamental part of speed tanking. It (the lack of a clear vision and method) very much IS something we can fix by there being a defined vision and method within which balance and role are framed. That is exactly the point of the OP (or at the bear minimum my support for it) and is at the hart of many prior problems with Dust development as I have been stated repeatedly since Closed Beta. Without a vision, without a context, everything is a deeply subjective mess of anecdotal hearsay. There is an entire game skill dedicated to this, its nothing new, Regnyum has a video on strafing tactics and a lot of high-end slayers are known for their ability to strafe. Are you insinuating that we should work to ensure strafing is -NOT- a viable tactic as a whole? If so, I'm okay with that, but it needs to apply to everyone, not just Assaults. It needs to apply to Logis and Scouts as well. My point is, and has always been, that any/all proposed changes be applied to ALL ROLES EQUALLY and that an focus on 1, or a small selection of roles is improper and should not happen I'm going to reply within the body of the quote above denoting my text with underline so that the forum doesn't block me from posting due to too many quotes. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.29 18:50:00 - [46] - Quote part 2, due to character limit Aeon wrote: I feel as though your obsession with a base method and a foundation is blinding you to the needs and desires of your community. Yes, we understand hit detection is an issue. Yes, we understand that strafing is a problem. Yes, we know that without strafing, we're entirely reliant on EHP. We also understand that many in the community dislike this - but it is what part of the game's entire culture is founded on. As previously stated, if it is an issue, than it needs to be quashed across the entire spectrum, not just with Assaults. I object to the hyperbolic use of "obsession" and find it inaccurate. Moving beyond that; There are a whole stack of "what if" questions which once again call to mind the sense of "shooting in the dark". I could delineate a list of what if's that are equally as plausible and also represent some segments of the player base. The most accurate response I can formulate to this is that at no time have I advocated the ratio be applied only to one role, in fact I have been advocating the exact opposite of that this entire time. This is not about assaults, logi, scouts, commandos, or sents, this is about a proper context applied to all of them that is and has always been the point. I understand and agree with your sentiment toward "The thing" but this isn't an effort to make Assaults "the thing" it's an effort to keep Assaults a viable playstyle that, without a unique and applicable role, has largely been associated with slayer-ship. Your community is asking to retain the things we value most with the role that we have carved the Assault into. The values that were designed to pull us from other roles into the Assault -because- we were using other roles for what we desired to do (and will continue to do so, even if that role is with the Logistics). If "the things that [you] value most" are superior levels of both eHP and speed simultaneously then I would have to say any role defined by that is not actually a role and still needs clearer definition. If the things most valued are not having a best in class combination of speed and eHP then at no point have I objected to those values being kept. And just so we're clear, since you talk about community representation, that must be the whole community all roles not one sub-segment which means that a method applied to all roles equally as I have been supporting the entire time is the only way for me to represent the community. Anything other than an even handed method applied to all becomes playing favorites and that is not good game health or community representation. It's not "don't touch any Assault numbers except the min assault", I'm not that obtuse, I'm saying that we want the Assaults to retain their functionality and the role that we basically had to make ourselves because they don't really have one that's unique to them. The proposal was to hit their speed. We said that wasn't in our favor because we need speed. The proposal shifted to changing sprint speed. We said that wasn't in our favor because movement/strafe speed is more valuable than sprint speed because we are combatants - we don't need help getting TO the battle, we need help surviving it in the first place. Now we are being told that our desire for that is a fundamental problem... What can we do to make a happy compromise, here? What way can we retain what we desire and need to adhere to our chosen specialization without moving/speccing into another suit while also going with the desire for a consistent method? The only proposal that I have been supporting (and remember these have been responses to me that you're making) is that there be a ratio equally applied to all roles. I have stated repeatedly that I am not advocating specific numbers and reiterated it yet again in the post you are responding to. I am in no way against assaults being functional, in fact I have actively promoted it on many occasions, but "functional" does not and cannot mean "superior". This is true for the Assault and it is true for every other role as well. There must be an even handed foundational method applied to all roles equally so that none are "the best" because be it definition you cannot have "the best role/race/fit" be a thing while also having balance. You've asked for a "compromise" which I am not sure how that applies in the contexts of my posts but by all means I'm happy to hear you out. Please list specifically what you want to keep and let's talk about if it has any conflicts with a fair and universally applied method. If it does not then there is no need for compromise as far as I'm concerned because I already don't oppose it in the least. What I do oppose is any role, no matter which, getting special treatment and advantage in something as basic as ability to be alive and act within the game. A role lacking that fundamental ability is not viable and a game with in-viable roles is not balanced, that sort of imbalance is what I do oppose. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.29 20:44:00 - [47] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: You've asked for a "compromise" which I am not sure how that applies in the contexts of my posts but by all means I'm happy to hear you out. Please list specifically what you want to keep and let's talk about if it has any conflicts with a fair and universally applied method. If it does not then there is no need for compromise as far as I'm concerned because I already don't oppose it in the least. What I do oppose is any role, no matter which, getting special treatment and advantage in something as basic as ability to be alive and act within the game. A role lacking that fundamental ability is not viable and a game with in-viable roles is not balanced, that sort of imbalance is what I do oppose. Then who do I need talk to that will be concerned with the issues I've brought up without it being related to this universally applied method? Because I find it unfair that we can't provide feedback in defense of our wants/needs unless it is directly related to this. I asked you to specifically list what you want in detail in that very post. And clearly this is CCP Rattati's thread. Both of the above being established facts I have no idea why you would not already be providing said detailed list of items. And please, when you do list these desired aspects put them in a list format yes? Paragraphs are great for the conversation we've been having thus far, but when it comes to recounting actual lists of items better to format them in lists then in blocks of text. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 01:50:00 - [48] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: 1) Assault Role, or lack thereof. 2) Lack of a dedicated middle-ground slayer after these changes(situated above the 4.5m/s margin) 3) Why, again, we can't just bring Logi's up to par with Assaults and just hit Assault's EHP, keeping them both at the same speed. 4) Why is it considered okay for Scouts/Logis to have higher speed but not Assault, even after we proposed an EHP nerf? 1 - We don't have a role, there hasn't been much work toward giving us a role since Uprising 1.7, and there doesn't look to be on the near horizon. What do you want Assaults to do? What do you want us to do in the meantime, while we wait? Assaults were buffed for slayer capability, now they're too good at Slaying, but we feel that the proposed changes will impact that in such a way as that we will want to move to other suits to continue slaying. This is suboptimal. 2 - If Assaults are dropped in speed than there is a larger gap in the EHP/Speed ratio for dedicated slayers. Assaults, currently, offer the second highest movement speed and we've already proposed that an EHP nerf would be acceptable to balance that out. The gap between Scout speed and Assault speed, with these proposed changes, is a harsh negative that even without being implemented yet is causing some dedicated assault players to consider changing to Slayer Logis to retain their speed, even knowing that the EHP is lower (offering credence that we'd just as soon take the EHP hit to maintain our current speed).[/u] 3 - A healthier alternative would simply be to buff the Logis and Commandos as the proposal stats but to leave Assaults alone. We can't automatically assume that players -won't- move on from Assaults unless they are simultaneously nerfed. We can absolutely go with a baseline foundation on Frames with slight assymetry if it proves to be beneficial. We do not absolutely, positively have to do everything at once. [u]Let's at least -try it out- and if it doesn't work (players aren't migrating from Assault to Logi/Commando) then we CAN ABSOLUTELY hit their speed. I worry that the precedence of doing it now, at the same time as everything, will cause a return of the previous trend where they're simply never brought back up (edit) in the eventuality that they're over-nerfed. 4 - If EHP/Speed ratio is the issue than why is it justifiable that Logis and Assaults switch Speed but not EHP? This boggles my mind. The goal is still being exacted on - Assaults lose EHP/Speed ratio whereas Logis gain it. And, again, it's not even 100% necessary for Logis to gain EHP in that case, we can simply nerf Assault EHP and see how it works. 1) Not certain what is defined as Assault Role in your eyes when it comes to mechancis. Will read on and presume it is covered by your other listed items. 2) I have at no point advocated specific numbers only that all roles exists within the same method equally. Given that I have specifically askewed any specific stats advocacy there is nothing in what I've supported that conflicts with assaults being above 4.5m/s so long as they and all other roles adhere to one method. 3) I have repeatedly stated that the particular numbers used, and even the relative places of each role on the curve, is something I am totally open about so long as every role adheres to the same method/ratio. If that means that all medium frames have identical speed and HP, that logi are faster with lower comparative ehp, or that assaults are faster with lower relative ehp, all of these satisfy the needs of a foundational method and any of these are acceptable to me as I have already stated more than once. 4) In my view it is okay for any role, Scout, Assault, Commando, Logi, Sent, to have any relative place on the speed to ehp curve relative to any other role so long as the same ratio method is applied to all of them. It seems most sensible for Sent to remain the slowest highest HP point on that curve, and Scouts the fastest speed lowest HP point on the other end simply for the sake of continuity. Further it seems most sensible that Commandos be faster than Sent, but slower than Assaults due to their presence as a heavy frame, but even this to me is open discussion. With regards to the Assault and Logi interactions specifically I see three possible methods; Make Assaults higher HP lower speed Make Logi higher HP lower speed Make both medium frames equal HP and speed matching one and other in all speed and HP stats. There are pros and cons to each of these but as I have stated prior any of them would uphold the foundational method and thus any of them are things I would support as acceptable. So long as the ratio is applied - equally and to all roles - then the specific numbers of how it is applied are secondary. My advocacy is, and has always been, employing a game wide balance method. No more, no less. 0.02 ISK ~ Cross CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 02:05:00 - [49] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: This is related but takes a bit of a different spin on the whole Logi/Assault speed issue; give them the same base speed. Give Assaults better stamina but less sprint speed and Logis better sprint speed but lower stamina. An Assault needs to be able to run for extended periods of time, move around, and engage targets. Logis need to be able to sprint across openings (I.e. short distances) to get to a teammate who is downed/injured/ammoless to assist them. If base speed is standardized and we simply adjusted the sprint/stamina, it would fit in with the requirements of each role. With everything else going like Rattati suggested on the thread, would this be a valid compromise for people? The assaults with be able to run a bit farther but for short distances they will not be as fast as the logis and slower than the scouts. As long as eHP of both roles is also scaled in light of this method being employed it would satisfy the need for a game wide method and as such be a functional option IMO. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 02:14:00 - [50] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: So long as the ratio is applied - equally and to all roles - then the specific numbers of how it is applied are secondary. My advocacy is, and has always been, employing a game wide balance method. No more, no less. 0.02 ISK ~ Cross Yeah, I understand that. I understood that five posts ago, lol. That was never up for debate. This honestly surprises me because it answers literally every single concern from your list (at least with regards to me, the individual you have been directly conversing with). Having understood it five posts ago and it never being up for debate as you declare (and I agree, I don't think my stance ever really was up for debate, I've been very clear and consistent on it) I am at a loss as to why you were motivated to address me for those intervening posts on this subject and do so in a manner that seemed to imply I had at any point said something in conflict with your desired aspect and outcomes (as defined by yourself in your list prior). CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 02:23:00 - [51] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: So long as the ratio is applied - equally and to all roles - then the specific numbers of how it is applied are secondary. My advocacy is, and has always been, employing a game wide balance method. No more, no less. 0.02 ISK ~ Cross Yeah, I understand that. I understood that five posts ago, lol. That was never up for debate. This honestly surprises me because it answers literally ever single concern from your list (at least with regards to me, the individual you have been directly conversing with). Aeon's been arguing for the specifics of where the assaults should lay on the curve, not arguing that they shouldn't (at least not anymore) Odd choice to argue it with me when I've been explicitly not holding an advocacy for where the specifics fall relative to each other. I suppose I did at one point state my personal inclination, but it was both tagged as such and contextualized with saying that I'd find any placement which adhered to the method acceptable. Seems odd to have taken it as far as asking me for a "compromise" (compromise what, and how, if our positions do not conflict and he understood that?) and implying that I am dismissive of the views and feedback which coincide with his (as seen below) Aeon Amadi wrote: Then who do I need talk to that will be concerned with the issues I've brought up without it being related to this universally applied method? Because I find it unfair that we can't provide feedback in defense of our wants/needs unless it is directly related to this. If his only advocacy is that a certain set of specifics be employed, and it has been understood that my stance does not exist for or against any set of specifics, only that all specifics be applied fairly to every role via one methodology. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 02:39:00 - [52] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: If his only advocacy is that a certain set of specifics be employed, and it has been understood that my stance does not exist for or against any set of specifics, only that all specifics be applied fairly to every role via one methodology. You're a CPM representative - who else was I supposed to talk to..? That's why I asked you who I needed to speak to in that earlier post. I wanted to discuss specifics. EDIT: Like - I'm cool with this EHP/Speed curve BS, I am, I just want you to understand that. But I also want to be clear that I want to discuss specifics and if you're not going to advocate or discuss specifics I need to know who I can talk to that will. I am not going to advocate specifics, I am going to discuss them (and have been). This being Rattati's thread he is reading and assessing the merits of the various specific stances, and since I view it as out side of the purview of a CPM to try and "sell" CCP on one feedback from one portion of the community vs another I see no place for me to have an official advocacy on the specific numbers of this subject. That being established, of course I'm happy to discuss the possible pros and cons of specific iterations of the method with you or anyone else. Perhaps it's the lingering migraine from yesterday effecting my clarity but until your statement above it was not clear to me that your objections or desire for discussion had nothing to do with the Speed/eHP curve and everything to do with where specific raw (not relative) numbers (assault speed yes?) are pegged. Having established that now, please by all means if there are any further or additional details you feel have not been clearly brought to light elaborate on them, I'm happy to continue to listen and discuss. Cheers, Cross CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 02:50:00 - [53] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: RedBleach LeSanglant wrote: MOOOAAAR HP - TANK LOGIS!!! Sounds like a blast, put me right next to my Amarr Sentinel brother. Logi's become slow logi stations and not a character that can follow the squad. Interesting... but I don't know how fun it would be until we tried it. Added "Red's Model" ... current speeds maintained, a substantial increase to base HP would be required to fit Logis to the curve. This page is all yours, so let me know if you'd like to tweak any of the values. > Google Doc < Personal Opinion: A different approach, but it definitely fit the curve :-) You've both just make Pokey extremely happy CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 15:50:00 - [54] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Speed and hp together is now the assault suit's defining speciality. They fit the curve, but are bonused to break it. This is the one specific thing that I am - as of now - completely opposed to. I do not care which role it is, but no role should be set up to break the curve or the curve itself ceases to hold the merits it now does. The Assault needs a stronger and clear role vision and it's own uniqueness, no question about that but no role can have the uniqueness of being the one that is the best in combined speed, HP, and dps. Even if that role is not possessing the highest raw numbers in any given area - presume that the "new" curve breaking assault cannot, even when fit, gain nearly scout mobility numbers, sentential HP numbers, or commando dps numbers - it still has balance breaking mechanical virtues. Speed, HP and dps are fundamental to the nature of an FPS having a single role be defined as the best mechanically, at holding their combined values is definitively imbalanced, just as have a single rifle with the best combined force projection, sustained dps, and alpha is an imbalanced design. Any, role, rifle, frame or fit being 'the best' is exactly what should not at any time be considered by development otherwise we get things like the old TAR, the double rep+double hardened maddy, the days of "scout 514", the old Cal Logi w/extender bonus, the old small missile turret that let people exceed 30 kills a match with ease and functionally no risk, etc. Saying something is meant to be a slayer suit (which the assault of course is meant to be) does not mean and can never mean that it is "the best suit" and any suit that has curve breaking HP+Speed teeters on if not out right becomes "the best" and that is before we even consider potential dps output which is certainly an asset relevant to the role of more than the Assault (it's not the only slayer in the game) and has an impact on the utility and survival of any role (if a role is meant to have less other features including it's survivability must counter balance that lack of being able to fight back and defend itself effectively). To be specialized is by definition to be highly skilled in a specific field. That is not equal to being above average in the combined value of all fields, that's not a specialization, that's an imbalance. We need one universal and equally applied game wide method, 'one role to rule them all' no matter which role that is. King of the hill roulette isn't good balance, we've had far too much of it in the course of Dusts history and it has to end not be codified as "okay" for one role to retain in perpetuity. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 15:53:00 - [55] - Quote wireless network wrote: Give logis same highs/lows and base HP/speed as assaults. Start with that small change. Tweak from there as necessary. I think a normalized medium frame line would still have to be tweak to properly fall within the curve as it relates to all other frames in the game, but as long as that's accounted for I see no reason to oppose that (actually this is one of the three methods I've mentioned a few times in this thread). It would uphold the curve which is the key element. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 16:07:00 - [56] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Why would you nerf assault speed and then bonus assault speed? Ratatti's suggestion was to fit assaults onto the curve, but buff their sprint modifier so they can still be fast. I don't like the idea of changing sprint modifiers as I think it's over complicated and not very transparent. Also, some people aren't happy with just having high sprint speed, they want high run speed aswell. So as an alternative I suggest giving assaults a speed bonus instead. Which would both be more transparent and maintain both good speed and sprint. i'm finding trouble seeing how any of this will result in actual balance. there are currently 33 pages concerning the balance of only two characteristics. power (ability to deal damage) defense (hp and regen) mobility (movement, sprint, strafe, stamina/regen) ewar (dropsuit profile, Precision, and range) support (equipment) (slot layout and fitting capacity serves only as a means to increase these characteristics) these five characteristics are present for each and every suit in the game yet here we are only concerned with balancing two of them? how do we achieve overall balance by neglecting the other characteristics? how does only adjusting speed and HP level of dropsuits and roles achieve overall balance? where our current goal to keep players from achieving both high HP and speed values at the same time, it should be the opposite. high hp and high speed fits should be possible and allowed, but it should be balanced by reducing the other attributes. If i gave you 5 points to divide up among those five characteristics we would have balance. The type of balance you describe cannot be applied without establishing ratios so that the effective value of each raw stat is on a 1:1 scale since clearly the raw numbers do not hold 1:1 value. 2 dB points is not equal to 2 points of stamina, 2 m/s move speed is not equal to 2 HP, etc. Until ratios are established we cannot define the actual content of those "5 points" you describe above and thus cannot divide them successfully. We need ratios to be able to move toward the type of balancing method you describe, which is AFAIK why the OP exists, because being able to move towards the more full fundamental balance you describe is desirable, but it requires a context which is currently lacking. Thus applying a framework that compares the relative values of things that have similar effects (of course no two stats will ever have the same effect or they'd just be one stat) in this case general survivability within matches, is called for. Baselines need to be established, for stats and for their modifiers (slot layouts and skills) but intermingling those two is a recipe for madness. It is find and good to say that all things should be considered, and you are quite right they should all be considered, but clearly considering them simultaneously without baseline frameworks in place is ineffective within a complex system like Dust, if it were effective we'd have had tighter balance a long time ago not a rotating FotM for years as things have been, especially not with the use and utility margins that have been recurrent. So, how do we achieve balance by balancing only two characteristics? We don't. Just like we don't achieve balance by trying to (in computer parlance) 'brute force' a solution by weighing everything at once without a frame work to assess what value or effective weight each factor holds. Thus we need to take an iterative approach, as the OP does, by defining frameworks. With those in place we can weigh all factors. Cheers, Cross CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 16:49:00 - [57] - Quote Haerr wrote: I think that the Assaults strength (comparative strength towards Logis, Commandos, and Sentinels) comes more from the ability to dictate how and when an engagement happens through mobility and regen. While the other dropsuit roles have, more or less, clearly defined roles Assaults do not. How Stuff lines up atm. Scan Profile: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Total Base HP: Sentinel > Commando > Assault > Logistics > Scout Movement Speed: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Stamina: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Stamina Regen: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Shield Recharge Rate: Scout > Assault > Logistcs/Sentinel > Commando Shield Recharge Delay: Scout > Sentinel > Logistics > Assault/Commando Shield Depleted Recharge Delay: Scout > Sentinel > Logistics > Assault/Commando There is a clear problem with Shield Stats since they have yet to receive attention since Rattati took over the helm, they don't particularly line up in any way except for Commandos being universally boned. But with the attention that Speed vs HP and Logi & Commandos are getting atm it is bound to get at least some attention. While acknowledging that applying a 1:1 ratio is not accurate, and that this is the very reason we need ratios like the Speed vs HP curve established looking at net hierarchy still holds some merit especially as we have some numbers on usage, and relative KDR (though I still say raw KDR is a bad stat for many reasons, it is one of our only established data points) so we can frame the effects somewhat. Here's the net ranking from the current hierarchy as you've outlined above. Scan Profile: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Total Base HP: Sentinel > Commando > Assault > Logistics > Scout Movement Speed: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Stamina: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Stamina Regen: Scout > Assault > Logistics > Commando > Sentinel Sub-total a: Scout 21 > Assault 20 > Logistics 13 > Commando 12 > Sentinel 9 Breaking shield skills into their own bracket in light of your accurate assessment about them. Shield Recharge Rate: Scout > Assault > Logistcs/Sentinel > Commando Shield Recharge Delay: Scout > Sentinel > Logistics > Assault/Commando Shield Depleted Recharge Delay: Scout > Sentinel > Logistics > Assault/Commando Subtotal b: Scout 15 > Sentinel 10.5 > Logistics 8.5 > Assault 7 > Commando 4 Combined totals: Scout 36 > Assault 27 > Logistics 21.5 > Sentinel 19.5 > Commando 16 Now, assuming that the amount of each is fit within a proper ratio as the OP suggests and as has been generally supported we should be seeing final combined values that are essentially equal. When that point of balance is reached the uniqueness of the role in question would then be applied to enhance their value. Sentinels have their damage resistances which magnify the value of their HP but do not mitigate their speed drawback. Scouts gain advantages to infiltration and eWar (with a nod to the eWar system still needing some very code heavy work) thus enhancing the applicable value of their speed while not mitigating the short coming of their light HP totals. Logistics gain advantages to the use of equipment, which does nothing to alter the balance of their mid range Speed and HP values Assaults gain advantages to damage output, which does nothing to alter the balance of their mid range HP and Speed values Commandos gain advantages to damage output, which does nothing to alter the balance of their lower mobility higher HP values Clearly, there are things that need improved from base state in the list above. Scouts, Logi, Assaults, and Commandos could all use a look at their racial skills, for internal role balance and utility. Commandos and Assaults need some extra attention to provide them with uniqueness in light of how much the nature of their roles currently overlap. As noted eWar needs it's own work which directly impacts everyone (arguably more heavily scouts as infiltrators). The one thing that does not need work in the above theoretical game state is that speed and HP are now balanced between all roles, in part because none of the mid range roles - Commando, Assault, Logistics - gain any racial bonuses to Speed or HP. And the outlier roles, Sentinels and Scouts, do not receive any bonuses which mitigate their built in role limits (speed and HP respectively). It doesn't give us game wide balance on its own, but keeping the ratio clean and intact does at least allow one aspect of balance to be accounted for so that others can be more effectively tuned. The key to watch out for in all of this is not allowing any sub-aspect of Speed or eHP to become falsely valued at a 1:1 with another aspect just because they are both in the same category. Having high Sta and Sta Regen for example (or good shield delay, and depleted delay) aren't as valuable as base speed, sprint speed, or buffer HP. Because the secondary values like shield delay, are force multipliers on the base values like raw HP, so what they are multiplying matters a great deal. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 18:20:00 - [58] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Assaults gain advantages to damage output, which does nothing to alter the balance of their mid range HP and Speed values Sort of...? I mean, it's not directly damage and some would argue that some effects (reload speed, which the commando gets anyway and dispersion which some of us are convinced is just a placebo) have little or nothing to do with damage output. Moreover, we get opportunity for increased combat performance. As noted in the post you are quoting, as well as many of my posts before it (including a CPM thread dedicated specifically to that very subject) the current Assault bonuses aren't performing as they should and need love. The post you are quoting is a theoretical game state with the Speed/HP ratio applied. As stated in the post it is not a representation of the current game state. Current Speed and HP values are not properly balance among roles, eWar is not currently functioning in an optimal state, shield vs armor could use a look, the conflicts/overlaps in role between Assault and Commandos would ideally be addressed, racial skills for the logistics, scout, and assault classes could all use improvement for internal role balance alone (and in some cases inter-role balance as well), etc. The post you are quoting is much more of a conceptual target (with nods to challenges faced in reaching those targets), what it is not is an assessment of how things currently stand. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.30 18:30:00 - [59] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Yes and that's what annoys me. We haven't even established a basic design for how things should interact with each other. I'm not a fan of designing five separate things first and then going back to see if they work and fit together. It's backwards. Like making puzzle pieces first and then printing the picture on the pieces after, instead of taking the overall picture and then breaking it up into separate pieces. Cooking a meal for example, usually starts with the recipe. You don't go and buy ingredients first without a recipe. That what were doing. Were taking the ingredients of the game and balancing them without a recipe for reference. I don't have high hopes for the end result using this method. I direct you to CCP Rattati's quote below CCP Rattati wrote: The designs need to make sense, intuitively. In order of priority, imagine a pyramid Slot progression needs to make sense, within roles and between roles PG/CPU capacity as they relate to slots and their layout HP and Speed are inverse, that's just physics and again intuitive These 3 principles form the foundation for Dropsuits. While they don't make sense, all the small things on top don't really matter. That's why I am not tackling role bonuses, because the foundation is cracked and not worth building on. This is not some haphazard thing being slapped together with on concept of how it will interact or ways in which it could fit together but even the best laid plans need iterative execution to see how the details play out. The recipe is as CCP Rattati outlines above Slot progression needs to make sense, within roles and between roles PG/CPU capacity as they relate to slots and their layout needs to be established in a game wide method HP and Speed need to have their naturally inverse relationship properly employed game wide within every role and context Establishing these things is the recipe, applying detail work is the "cooking" in this context. After all you certainly don't start masuring out amounts of things before you bother to check the labels for what those things are (or without knowing how they effect the flavor of the dish). PS ~ Total side note, but I actually do start cooking without a recipe all the time, for cooking it can be quite fun, but no dispute that it's poor practice for game design, that's why game wide methods like the OP need to happen. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.31 16:16:00 - [60] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: > Google Doc < Each model now includes base movement and sprint charts for the following loadout scenarios: * Base HP (No Shields, No Plates) * Max Ferro HP (Max Shields, Max Ferro Plates) * Max HP (Max Shields, Max Complex Plates) Additionally, R-¦ values are now displayed for each scenario's speed/hp curve! In essence, the closer the R-¦ value is to 1, the tighter the data fit the curve. R-¦ Rankings Base HP Ranking - Model Name (R-¦ Movement, R-¦ Sprint) 96.9% - Heim's (0.969,0.969) 96.3% - Red's (0.963,0.963) 95.1% - Adipem's (0.951,0.951) 94.7% - Varoth's (0.947,0.947) 93.7% - Aeon's? (0.937,0.937) 93.1% - Rattati's Prototype (0.931,0.931) 93% - Thokk's (0.93,0.93) 91.6% - Haerr's (0.916,0.916) 91.35% - Booby's (0.949,0.878) 90.65% - Ripley's (0.949,0.864) 90.1% - Spero's (0.851,0.951) 87.95% - Rattati's +/- 0.3 (0.95,0.809) 82.5% - Current (0.825,0.825) Max Ferro HP Ranking - Model Name (R-¦ Movement, R-¦ Sprint) 95.3% - Rattati's Prototype (0.953,0.953) 95.1% - Aeon's? (0.951,0.951) 93.3% - Adipem's (0.933,0.933) 92.9% - Haerr's (0.929,0.929) 92.1% - Heim's (0.921,0.921) 90.7% - Varoth's (0.907,0.907) 90.2% - Red's (0.902,0.902) 87.6% - Ripley's (0.938,0.814) 86.7% - Spero's (0.802,0.932) 85.95% - Booby's (0.919,0.8) 83.85% - Rattati's +/- 0.3 (0.918,0.759) 83.2% - Thokk's (0.832,0.832) 74.2% - Current (0.742,0.742) Max HP Ranking - Model Name (R-¦ Movement, R-¦ Sprint) 91.7% - Rattati's Prototype (0.917,0.917) 91.2% - Aeon's? (0.912,0.912) 91.1% - Adipem's (0.911,0.911) 90.7% - Heim's (0.907,0.907) 90.3% - Red's (0.903,0.903) 90% - Haerr's (0.9,0.9) 88.7% - Varoth's (0.887,0.887) 85.2% - Ripley's (0.913,0.791) 84.4% - Spero's (0.778,0.91) 84.15% - Booby's (0.898,0.785) 82.7% - Thokk's (0.827,0.827) 81.6% - Rattati's +/- 0.3 (0.898,0.734) 72.4% - Current (0.724,0.724) Overall Ranking Ranking - Model Name (Sum of R-¦) 93.4% - Rattati's Prototype (5.602) 93.3% - Aeon's? (5.6) 93.2% - Heim's (5.594) 93.2% - Adipem's (5.59) 92.3% - Red's (5.536) 91.5% - Haerr's (5.49) 91.4% - Varoth's (5.482) 87.8% - Ripley's (5.269) 87.2% - Booby's (5.229) 87.1% - Spero's (5.224) 86.3% - Thokk's (5.178) 84.5% - Rattati's +/- 0.3 (5.068) 76.4% - Current (4.582) * Ranking (%) = (R-¦ Movement + R-¦ Sprint) / Maximum (2) * Overall Ranking (%) = Sum of All R-¦ / Maximum (6) Note: Max Ferro and Max HP curves assumes Commandos receive +1 Low Slot. Caveat: Each model's Speed/HP curves are currently derived from that model's data. We've established that an inverse, exponential relationship should exist between Speed and HP, but we've yet to determine/define the optimal Speed/HP curve. In other words, we don't have an ideal curve to plot data against; the curves you see in the graphs and the R-¦ rankings above -- while fun for spitballing and comparison -- are not necessarily "correct" as they are not fit against the ideal. How hard would it be to break strafe speed out into its own category? A lot of the feedback I've encountered thus far seems to indicate that (quite possibly in light of the hit detection currently present) strafe is valued higher than broader forms of mobility. CCP Rattati has mentioned it can be tuned independently, and if it remains the overly potent compared to the others it may well need to be tuned independently of them (likely with a universal down trend on the game wide average if it's effects so deeply feed the ability to wiggle dance ones way into 'bullet time' like resistance to incoming fire). I would be very interested to see how the proposed methods stack up and/or are altered by their advocates if the assumption "no class will possess enough strafe speed to wiggle dance post changes" is added to the overall evaluation framework. Thanks for building and maintaining all these sheets o7 CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.31 16:37:00 - [61] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: 1. How hard would it be to break strafe speed out into its own category? 2. Thanks for building and maintaining all these sheets o7 1. Strafe Speed is a constant at 0.9 movement. If added to these graphs, strafe values for each scenario would appear directly below the movement values (mirroring them perfectly). To answer your question, not hard. But arguably not necessary, unless you have variable values in mind you'd like to see modeled. 2. NP! (I'm having a blast). My variable value that I'd like to see is low enough it cannot be employed to break hit detection sadly I'm not sure how I'd reach actual raw numbers for that. It does seem clear - or at the very least likely - that said values are sitting at too high a game wide average at present, but what the translation for that is (i.e. how far they'd need pulled back) I don't have the data to say. I am interested however what the authors of some of the proposals would see as needed to keep the conceptual fidelity of their ideas sound assuming a lower game wide strafe modifier, say back at Chrome levels of 0.6 (that was it wasn't it?) as that's something we've at least had in the game (granted in a notably different context on a number of fronts). Would love input on the subject of how an actionable modifier value could be reached, and of course from the various method authors about what - if any - changes they would like to see to their method should a strafe modifier shift be instituted game wide. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.05.31 16:57:00 - [62] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Heimdallr69 wrote: Adipem you running for cpm? No chance, Heim. Wife and I have our first kid on the way (due September). Congrats, and I wish you the very best of fortune as you embark on your voyage into the lands of #WhatTheKittenIsSleepAnyway? CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.01 00:36:00 - [63] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Would love input on the subject of how an actionable modifier value could be reached, and of course from the various method authors about what - if any - changes they would like to see to their method should a strafe modifier shift be instituted game wide. My two cents: Definitely up for tweaking mechanics, but it might be best to tweak one at a time. As I see it, a normalized speed/hp curve should be field tested and tuned (if necessary) prior to the introduction of other big changes. If we tweak too many mechanics at one time, the effects of those tweaks could compound, making troubleshooting and finetuning more difficult. Totally in support of iterative balance changes. That being said, presuming we could hone in on a raw number that falls below the "I can strafe enough to break hit detection" threshold, I would personally prioritize that and/or not class it as a balance change at all. It is in my view (which is open for discussion of course) not a balance change so much as a fix as it runs directly converse to players having continuing access to the ability to break basic mechanics of the game. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.01 03:55:00 - [64] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Would love input on the subject of how an actionable modifier value could be reached, and of course from the various method authors about what - if any - changes they would like to see to their method should a strafe modifier shift be instituted game wide. My two cents: Definitely up for tweaking mechanics, but it might be best to tweak one at a time. As I see it, a normalized speed/hp curve should be field tested and tuned (if necessary) prior to the introduction of other big changes. If we tweak too many mechanics at one time, the effects of those tweaks could compound, making troubleshooting and finetuning more difficult. Totally in support of iterative balance changes. That being said, presuming we could hone in on a raw number that falls below the "I can strafe enough to break hit detection" threshold, I would personally prioritize that and/or not class it as a balance change at all. It is in my view (which is open for discussion of course) not a balance change so much as a fix as it runs directly converse to players having continuing access to the ability to break basic mechanics of the game. Completely agree with your reasoning, but I still have a few reservations ... 1. If we rolled out two big changes to movement at once, and we didn't like what we ended up with, which change would we blame? 2. If I recall correctly, Aim Assist was introduced and calibrated against 0.9 strafe. There's a possibility that some (or all) weapons might be too good at aiming themselves against a strafe multiplier lower than 0.9. If we reduce the strafe multiplier, Aim Assist may require immediate recalibration, and AA Adhesion values may not be the same one weapon to the next. What seems like as a simple, one variable change (0.9 ---> 0.x) could turn into a multi-variable, protracted process. 3. Reducing strafe speed will negatively impact legitimate strafing. Reducing Assault movement will negatively impact legitimate strafing. Doing both at once could really negatively impact legitimate strafing. My two cents, of course :-) I think you're spot on, and honestly in light of the above reasoning I would heavily lean towards doing the alteration to strafe not only first but post haste so that this conversation we are all having in the thread here could be advised by the effects of a changed strafe mechanic. After all, it should be much easier to hotfix in a changed modifier than debate, consider, and implement a proper game wide speed/hp ratio, no? Besides which, if we arrive at a solid ratio and then alter strafe, what does that do to our ratio? Where as if we alter strafe and then use that to advise a ratio, we won't be doing our work twice as it were. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.01 05:02:00 - [65] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: The Min Logi getting its first ever buff? Logi suits and Commando suits, my two primary play styles, are getting a buff? I never thought I would see the day!!! Is the Logi speed buff for movement speed only, or sprint speed as well? Will Logis move faster, but Assaults sprint faster? The Slayer Logi QQ is expected, but you are seriously nerfing yourself by trying to make a Logi perform an Assaults role... I am not worried about killer bees. sprint and strafe speeds are just multipliers off of movement speed, so all go up. Coolio. Have you considered forcing all equipment slots to be filled to make a valid fit? I have, but that will be a later part when I am balancing the same powercore for assaults and logistics. A much more elegant solution is: to make Logi Eq bonus a BIG fitting bonus. something like -50% or -75%. Also, at the same time nerf PG+CPU for logis. That would make it practical to fill those minimal cost Eq slots. A fixed role bonus, perhaps? I've suggested the same, one drawback with it is that to accomplish the goal even with the raised role bonus it nearly requires that the base CPU/PG cost of equipment be raised. Which could be fine as it would define the support role more clearly (somewhat like scouts with cloaks) but it is a much larger consideration in it's implication and not to be done too lightly. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.01 20:01:00 - [66] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Totally in support of iterative balance changes. That being said, presuming we could hone in on a raw number that falls below the "I can strafe enough to break hit detection" threshold, I would personally prioritize that and/or not class it as a balance change at all. It is in my view (which is open for discussion of course) not a balance change so much as a fix as it runs directly converse to players having continuing access to the ability to break basic mechanics of the game. Completely agree with your reasoning, but I still have a few reservations ... 1. If we rolled out two big changes to movement at once, and we didn't like what we ended up with, which change would we blame? 2. If I recall correctly, Aim Assist was introduced and calibrated against 0.9 strafe. There's a possibility that some (or all) weapons might be too good at aiming themselves against a strafe multiplier lower than 0.9. If we reduce the strafe multiplier, Aim Assist may require immediate recalibration, and AA Adhesion values may not be the same one weapon to the next. What seems like as a simple, one variable change (0.9 ---> 0.x) could turn into a multi-variable, protracted process. 3. Reducing strafe speed will negatively impact legitimate strafing. Reducing Assault movement will negatively impact legitimate strafing. Doing both at once could really negatively impact legitimate strafing. My two cents, of course :-) I think you're spot on, and honestly in light of the above reasoning I would heavily lean towards doing the alteration to strafe not only first but post haste so that this conversation we are all having in the thread here could be advised by the effects of a changed strafe mechanic. After all, it should be much easier to hotfix in a changed modifier than debate, consider, and implement a proper game wide speed/hp ratio, no? Besides which, if we arrive at a solid ratio and then alter strafe, what does that do to our ratio? Where as if we alter strafe and then use that to advise a ratio, we won't be doing our work twice as it were. I'd personally approach it the other way around. Let's take the case of the MN Assault, for example ... Say we start by reducing the strafe multiplier until the MN Assault is beyond wiggle range. Its movement speed to hitpoint ratio will remain unchanged, its position on the speed/hp plot will remain unchanged, and its relative distance from speed/hp curve will remain unchanged. If we later fit all suits to a speed/hp curve, MN Assault movement speed would very likely be reduced, even though its wiggling is no longer at issue. If, on the other had, we begin by fitting all suits to a speed/hp curve, MN Assault movement speed would very likely be reduced, and it would become less good at wiggling. If a strafe adjustment from 0.9 is still needed, it will likely be a lesser adjustment than the one needed in the previous scenario. TL;DR: If my thinking is correct, we'd likely get away with a lesser adjustment to the strafe multiplier if we begin by first drawing the extremes in closer to the speed/hp curve. Approaching the problem from the other direction (in my estimation) runs greater risk of over correction. (spitballing here ... hope this makes sense) If we're going that route we wouldn't be adjusting based on the Min Assault we'd be taking the highest movement suit in the game and moving it's speed downward until it no longer was able to "use the wiggle" as it were. Altering the Min Assault doesn't actually change that one way or the other as the Min may be an outlier within the Assault role but it is not the fastest suit on offer in a game wide context. So we can look to the scout racial suits (they are still faster than the Min Assault at base, no?) and ask "can they move at strafe speeds that break hit detection?" if the answer is "yes" as last I knew it most certainly was, then the adjustment of strafe values downwards is needed regardless of the position of the Min Assault relative to other assaults or medium frames. I support the curve, but no suit should be able to wiggle it's way through damage which means that the highest strafe value in the game, regardless of what suit it is attached too or where that suit falls on the hp/speed curve, needs to be below the threshold of 'wiggle power'. And since the curve by it's very nature will have a suit or two that comprise it's far end speed values, those values must be blow our "no wiggle" number, regardless of the ratios established for the curve. So while yes, if we were to aim the wiggle reduction at the assault suits it would be ineffective and problematic, that wouldn't be the proper method as we need to focus "max wiggle" on the fastest suit(s) in the game and move downwards from there accordingly within the speed/hp curve. After all, no matter what speed to HP ratio is ultimately applied we don't want any suit with the ability to break the hit detection. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.01 21:02:00 - [67] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Came up with a different perspective after giving this more thought last night. What if Max Survivability was not a function of Speed to HP, but was rather a more specific function of Strafe Speed to HP? Further, what if there were a "sweet spot" on the grid, a point beyond which wiggle works best? Putting together another spreadsheet as we speak ... :: tinkering :: Interested to see what you come up with Personally I think the wiggle gives strafe too much potency relative to other attributes (both speed and HP) and needs to be pulled back to where it is no longer able to break hit detection for any role at any level. Avoiding fire via tactical movement such as use of cover, flanking, and removal of ones self from fire zones in response to danger, those are all great. The ability to stand in the open (or anywhere else) and not take damage as if one is living in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, that's not great (nor is it intended function AFAIK) and shouldn't be balanced around because it is likely to be removed as soon as method/means to do so is attained. If the Min Assault is potent not because of the ratio of speed to HP that it has, but rather because of the ratio of ability to strafe break hit detection while having enough tank to absorb stray shots that it has, then that's not something to balance around that's something to fix. After which actual speed to HP balance should be assessed. New Eden may be a future scifi world, but it is not the Matrix, and we may have "Neo" proto suits but that doesn't mean any suit should be able to dodge bullets the way he can CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.01 21:17:00 - [68] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Assumption: There exists a wiggle "sweet spot" ... a ratio of Strafe Speed to HP beyond which optimal wiggle and/or strafe performance is returned. * Units at or beyond this point tend to be hardest to hit * Units at or beyond this point are sufficiently durable to withstand getting hit * Units at or beyond this point make for the best slayer platforms * Units at or beyond this point have the potential to become OP/FoTM New Google Doc! Let's start by looking at past and present FoTM. Under "Current (0.9)" we find the MN Assault with base hitpoints of 500 and 4.77 m/s strafe speed. As this unit is presently the best wiggler and OP/FoTM, we can assume the wiggle "sweet spot" is located somewhere around it. For simplicity's sake, we'll pick the bounds of 500HP and 4.50 m/s strafe. If these bounds are correct, the chart on the right of "Current (0.9)" shows all units with the mechanical foundation needed to be become great wigglers. There we find 8 units, including today's overperformers (Assaults), as well as yesterday's overperformers (high-hitpoint Scouts). Now let's look at "Rattati's Prototype (0.9)". Here, we've effectively fit all units more tightly to a speed/hp curve, as described on Page 1 of this thread. The chart on the right, however, still shows that we have 7 units in range of the wiggle "sweet spot". All else held constant, these units arguably have the potential to be become great wigglers. TL;DR: You may be onto to something, Cross. If the above assumptions are true, and we rolled out a reduction to strafe speed first, we might avoid a slayer migration. We also might cure wiggle. Spitballing, of course. Caveat: There isn't necessarily a wiggle "sweet spot", though its as good a theory as any. If there is a wiggle "sweet spot", it isn't necessarily within the bounds described above. I arbitrarily set those bounds to 500 HP / 4.5 strafe to illustrate a point; if a sweet spot exists, these bounds are likely in the ballpark, but they aren't necessarily accurate. The sweet spot is an interesting notion, I hadn't drawn out considerations quite that far but that's very interesting. Thinking of wiggle as in essence an excessive level of speed tank where speed is used not to avoid situations where damage is applied to you, but rather is improperly used to avoid the damage itself, then obviously it is not a 100% universal so HP does hold an impact in light of the stray shots that could land, or the damage taken in moments before wiggle pattern movement is initiated. The other factor here then is DPS output, because you do not need as much HP to absorb stray shots when your required wiggle time is lower. Thus the higher the DPS output of the suit, and the force projection on that DPS the wider range of 'sweet spot' would apply because the required 'wiggle window' would be lower. I am far from the most proficient wiggler in the game but even I have been able to do things like wiggle my way through the fire of officer HMGs on Proto Sents - while in my STD Sent with MLT HMG - until I killed them with most of my health intact. To be clear this isn't me dropping in behind the guy and getting him down greatly before he can turn and draw a bead on me, that's valid tactical game play, I'm talking about a heads up gun battle where we're both facing each other and are the only two shooting and no cover is employed or nades thrown... oh, but he did have a logi repping him Things like that, those aren't skill sets, those aren't me being a talented player or him being unskilled, those are broken mechanics that need to be eradicated with extreme prejudice. Or at least, such is my view CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.02 17:14:00 - [69] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: A note of concern. There's too much bias toward hp tanking. Rattati mentions an additional slot for commandos. Why? Are slots only for extenders and plates? Why can't anything other than hp mods be viable or useful? If you're going to add a slot, what are all possible uses of slot and are any of them going to make it otherwise OP? If caldari commando gets an extra slot, will it be a high slot for hp and damage mods or a low slot for an additional shield regulator for increase regen ability or kincats and cardiac regulators for increased mobility. That's what an additional slot offers. Rattatis KDR data already shows the the cal commando as the most efficient suit in the game as a sniper platform. Would an additional high slot really be used for an hp mod or to further bolster it's already impressive sniping ability? Well personally speaking, I want an additional high slot on my Gallente Commando so I could have a damage mod at STD levels. Also as for forced equipment, it's really not going to do much. People will simply stack on 4 Compact Nanohives and call it a day. It's a crude solution that won't bear the degree of intended results that people want. The only way to properly get the intended effect is through fitting reduction bonuses. Much as I advocate use of fitting bonuses (and I really, really, do) they don't have much "play" when we get down to raw numbers and using them to attain this goal nearly requires a retooling of equipment costs (CPU/PG specifically) upwards to make the total net CPU/PG output simultaneously A) Viable, when fitting a full rack of equipment, and B) strict enough, that it will provide the limiting factor sought. Based on the various numbers and spot checks I've done if one wants to allow for a proto logi to have proto equipment and proto H/L slots with only standard weapons and assuming the character in question has max skills in everything relevant (including the unlisted bonuses) we're looking at something in the vicinity of ~20% increase on CPU/PG costs for fitting any equipment (aside from the cloak which would be left untouched due to it's scout affinity). The necessary increase in fittings costs can't get much less than that or the value of the savings form the role bonus - even when double - isn't enough to counter more than a minimal shift in base stats (once we account for the compound loss from a lower amount gained via the basic non-role fittings skills). I included this concept in my initial proposal in my logistics feedback threat and was met with some resistance, both from players of the support role, and from players who wanted to play another role but provide their own support without a logistics member in their squads. Conceptually I find this possible shift to be useful for providing proper role definition to both medium frames by limiting the logistics potential to be run as a pure slayer without equipment and by limiting the ability of other frames to "self logi" without a higher opportunity cost, but that's not my call to make unilaterally. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.02 17:25:00 - [70] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: As a minmatar scout, and possibly that highest strafer in the game, I would gladly put my own strafe on the chopping block if it meant the end of the wiggle break-dance. Take it, end it, let the madness just stop. One day if we get better hit detection, inertia, framerate, or any combination of those, maybe we can bring strafe speeds back up. Until then, nothing is worth buggering up hit detection. Completely agree. ^all of this I have the Minmitar Scout, Logistics, Assault, Commando, and Sentinel all in my current fittings. This strafe reduction will hit my match to match play directly, and I still firmly support it. As Kaeru so aptly put it, let the madness just stop. (with the stated hope that someday down the line we can revisit things, better hit detection in hand, and perhaps rescale speeds at that time) 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.02 17:58:00 - [71] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: As a minmatar scout, and possibly that highest strafer in the game, I would gladly put my own strafe on the chopping block if it meant the end of the wiggle break-dance. Take it, end it, let the madness just stop. One day if we get better hit detection, inertia, framerate, or any combination of those, maybe we can bring strafe speeds back up. Until then, nothing is worth buggering up hit detection. Completely agree. Though I'm not sold on a specific multiplier ... One more graph Google Doc: Strafe Speed Multipliers Plots strafe speeds at multipliers 0.9x (present) through 0.6x (chromosome). Includes two "baselines" for point of reference. The upper baseline is current MN Assault strafe speed; the lower baseline is current MN Sentinel strafe speed. A few observations ... * At a strafe multiplier of 0.85, tomorrow's MN Assault (4.51 m/s) would strafe at roughly the same speed as today's MN Logi (4.5 m/s). * At a strafe multiplier of 0.8, tomorrow's MN Assault (4.24 m/s) would strafe at roughly the same speed as today's GA/CA Logi (4.23 m/s). * At a strafe multiplier of 0.7, tomorrow's MN Assault (3.71 m/s) would strafe only slightly faster than today's MN Sentinel (3.65 m/s). * If we implemented Chromosome's sprint multiplier of 0.6, tomorrow's MN Assault (3.18 m/s) would strafe at lower speed than today's AM Sentinel (3.29 m/s). Looking at the raw data, and taking the current Min Assault strafe of 4.77 as too high due to clearly being able to wiggle, and accounting for the Min Scout and it's higher move rate - as the stated goal is to not let any suit break hit detection via wiggle - we're looking at a reduction in modifier game wide down at least to 0.75 which brings the Min Scout to a strafe of ~4.24 that's 0.53 less strafe then the current Min Assault, but we must bear in mind that it is not only the Min Assault that is capable of the wiggle even if they are benefiting greatly from it due to the "sweet spot" effect, and further that in a game state where only 1-2 suits can wiggle they gain an even greater value from it than at present, it seems highly advisable that the opening range for reduction be a minimum of 0.7 with an awareness that it may need to go all the way to do 0.6 Your bullet points above, and their comparative speed values, combined with my own in game testing, I can say categorically that we need to go lower than 0.8 as the Minmitar Logi certainly can wiggle at 4.5 and we'll have to pull the Min Scout down below that range (the Min Logi suit I tested this on had 415 total HP including a basic plate thus lowering it's move below 'out of the box' value for the Min Logi, so I was doing this with a strafe of ~4.4 on a suit with 415 HP so when it comes to "sweet spot" values we want to make sure strafe for our fastest case falls below that. Also worth noting is that I was using an Exile AR and this was on my low SP alt, so far from Max skills or max DPS force projection, all of which obviously expand the bounds of the "sweet spot".) That being the case we may be best served to simply revert to 0.6 immediately and then assess from there if we have any room to tune upwards again without restoring "wiggle power" to one or more frames. 0.02 ISK EDIT: One additional point, that STD Sentinel fit that I mentioned earlier, the one I wiggle danced my way through fire in while killing the Proto Sent with the Officer HMG and the attached Logi? The fit I was in was a brick tanked Amarr STD Sentinel, so comparing that with the contextual values you provide on your bullet list underscores yet again how a 0.6 modifier is likely the way to go as a first step and then tune if/as needed from there. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4	Posted - 2015.06.02 21:25:00 - [72] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Operating on gut feel here, but -33% at 0.6x seems too steep and too sudden a drop to me, Cross. Isn't 0.5x the unnaturally sluggish backpedal speed in merc quarters? If my understand is correct, this multiplier can be set via server-side hotfix. Even if we ultimately ended up with a very low multiplier, wouldn't it be better to iterate in that direction and monitor effects, rather than jump straight to what might be too much? Just to be safe? Please note that I'm no friend of wiggle; I've complained about it as much as anyone. I'm simply concerned about potential over correction and unintended consequence. Another thought. Wiggle isn't necessarily off or on. Let's assume a unit is presently able to dodge 80% of an incoming bullet stream by wiggling at 0.9x strafe. What percent would that same unit be able to dodge at 0.8x strafe? Still 80%? 40%? 20%? I don't think we can say with certainty. In my mind, this is a good reason to iterate and measure effect. I'm all for iteration, I'd just rather start at a low value - thus being farther removed from breaking mechanics - and tune upwards if able than to tune downwards too little and wait awhile, then tune downwards too little again and wait, etc. The other asset of a firmer reduction right out of the gate is that if the value of speed is indeed heavily weighted primarily by the value of strafe speed then this would serve to illustrate that point so that we are not building a ratio for speed/hp in a distorted manner by including the value of wiggle in the curve of our ratio. If we value either aspect, speed or HP too highly due to an improper outlier - the ability of wiggle to increase the value of speed - we run the risk of undercutting entire racial paradigms possibly making the Min and Amarr both unbalanced game wide (whether OP or UP). We're both clearly seeking redress of the same problems, and we see a lot of the same factors (such as the ability to hotfix the strafe modifier) we just seem to be weighting our concerns a bit differently with regards to priority. One of mine being that if you take the step of making a firm change (no larger than the increase that was made a few builds back) you get a much more clear and stark perspective on how large a portion of the value of speed is composed of strafe speed. Where as if you take baby steps downward then the shift is rather predictably smaller and less illustrative of what weight strafe speed carries compared to other forms of speed. I believe you are correct in assessing that wiggle is not a purely binary state, i.e. that strafe will hold value in reducing damage even if it is not breaking hit detection (and further that hit detection issues when compounded by aim assist implications are like not a simple yes/no prospect in their implications). Considering that I further think you are correct that we cannot say with certainty what % change yields what game wide result. That is why I've resorted to simple spot checks with on the field testing. If my low SP alt (aprox 7mill SP most of it in logi related skills not combat skills) in a STD logi suit with MLT mods (including a plate) can still meaningfully use wiggle behavior to evade damage then that - to me - indicates it is possessing of too high wiggle ability and by extension too much strafe in the current context. My sentiments on the subject are underscored by the fact that I am far from the most proficient slayer, or wiggler, in the game and thus it's a given that even with the same mechanical stats there will be players who can leverage their value and effect further than I. So while I may not know what % damage is being evaded at each given level of strafe I can say that ~4.4 strafe speed seems to be functionally too high and take a simple step from there to say - if we are to have a curve then the fastest strafe speed needs to be below that 4.4 mark. My STD Quafe Minja for example runs at only 91 HP less than the logi suit in question filling all slots and using only STD mods. And strafes at 0.685 faster than the wiggle ready logi fit. On a scale which caps out slightly over 5 that 0.685 is substantial and even considering the tightening of the sweet spot based on the loss of that 91 HP we're still looking at a substantial reduction to pull it out of wiggle range and I just don't see shifting the current mod by down from 90% to 80% even being in the running when it comes to that. I am of course open, as always, to further discussion on the topic. o7 CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

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.