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.)

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.

[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 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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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?

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.

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.

Probably because your wants/needs as stated are "we want the status quo"

and it's an ass status quo.

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.

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.

EDIT: Since it is CCP Rattati's thread here is an extra point of specific focus


Please take specific care to list if and or how your wants conflict with Rattati's quote above and if they do elaborate on why and how your listed wants should take precedence and in what way that provides better game wide balance/heath than does the scenario proposed by the quoted text. I still find a game wide focus to be the most relevant, but since you wish to focus more tightly the interaction between the medium frames as described by Rattati seems the proper point to do it.

Unnecessary and, frankly, rude.

Aeon, so, to be clear, you have no problem with the eHP vs Speed curve, you just have the problem with the Assaults getting lower speed (and would be willing the take an eHP nerf to fit into the curve), due to the similarity between Assaults and Commandos, and concerns about the logi's relative power is that correct?

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.

I am not worried about killer bees.

sprint and strafe speeds are just multipliers off of movement speed, so all go up.

Hey to be honest, most my complaints with shields are being indirectly handled here. The minmatar assault mobility was an issue for me. But also it's dual tanking ability needs to be addressed. And then the ScR being addressed so I don't die when it looks at me from 0m - 100m away

Just curious why a soldier that carries a **** ton of equipment will be faster than his assault counterpart........I understand your graphs and can see the curve makes sense on paper....but I don't play DUST on PAPER!!!

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.

Make Logi higher HP lower speed

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

Specialized Servos/Exoskeleton takes the place of the targeting sensors/heat sinks of the assaults allowing it to move faster despite the heavier load? If your issue is to the how a soldier moves faster it's easy to technobabble with sufficiently advanced technology, especially for a universe with confirmed anti-grav/non-air-cushion hover tech, things like graviton reactors and tractor beams

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.

Just want to chime in: I haven't actually looked at your numbers adipem, but I'd really be in favor of logi's having (comparatively) lower sprint speeds, in exchange for faster walk speeds. While using an active piece of equipment like a rep tool, logi's can have major issues trying to keep up with a sentinel they're repping if the sentinel decides to sprint at all.

I also do think that assault walk speeds should be lowered, in exchange for (slightly) faster sprint speeds, as this helps address issues with wigglewiggle destroying hit detection.

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

Agreed however the CPU/PG of Logi suit would be severely affected by the drain of running 4x the equipment+BW+ stronger servo/exoskeleton to make said logi suit faster than the more simple design of the assault.... pompous techno-babbling unnecessary.... Whenever the assaults gain targeting sensors/heat sinks let me know....I also believe the logi fit has a better natural scan radius. All this takes power.

Anyway this is a digression from the point and I didn't post this so you see your own colourful words in print...

A simple designed assault suit SHOULD be faster and more tanked than a complexly designed logi suit...maybe not by as much as it is currently...My opinion...

BTW have you ever driven an LAV in DUST???? I guess the anti-grav/non-air-cushion hover tech was left at home spawn!!!!!

Yeah, I understand that. I understood that five posts ago, lol. That was never up for debate.