It's easy. You just have to delete your System32 folder.

Wait... this is a thread
I thought it was a place, like a Escher building, with no beginning and no end

Why can't it be both?

Mind = Blown

Maybe no one care but its an happy week for me. I will finally undergoes a surgery in 6 month after suffering strabism since beginning of june 2013, two week before the respec wiwe get in the beginning of uprising .Its a muscle nerv problem. I lived with this without treatment until beginning of june 2014 where i received special glsses to fix my vision, my problem was that strong that i received the maximum prism the glasses can get. I will undergoes the surgery in might be 6 months. For those wgo dont know strabism is a double vision problem,im atually at lvl which is the max lol. I was against questionned this week saying why i deleted Morathi III. Now you know. Some scout are sneaky even in RL

Happy hunting

Wait till you find my hidden distillery

I tried playin gDUST today. Got in 1 match that was already in progress then spent 30 minutes trying to get into another to no avail.
So I switched back to Destiny and now there's a connection issue there. Clearly the gods of videogames do not want me playing today.

I got a Legendary Engram from Crucible. I was so excited. Took it to the Cryptarch and it was a warlock helm. ****. Got another Legendary Engram from crucible and it was a Rare scout rifle. Got another Legendary Engram and it was a Strange Coin.
Finally picked up the Legendary Hand Cannon.

Bought the Hunters' chest piece from Xur. Bumped me from 23 to 24. I'm 19 rep points away from being able to buy gear with crucible marks... and that connection error!!

Vanguard is dumb. I can use Strikes to collect Vanguard Marks but only the vanguard vendor accepts them. So I feel like I'm wasting their rep when I use it for the one I'm building up.

Yeah, solo'ing Strikes is so easy in Destiny. Every single map as at least 1 exploitable location in it that makes you basically invincible.

Playedin Cruicible with 4 FA guys last night and Symbiotic forks. lol, Symb is my only PSN friend from that group and I saw him on and joined the fireteam. I joined an in-progress match on the other team. I got like 6 enforcer medals from that match becuase it was so one-sided. Then We all played as a single group and it was just mean.

i was a bit embarrassed, of the 5 or six games I played with them, fussioncommando actually did better than me in 1 of them.

Wait... this is a thread
I thought it was a place, like a Escher building, with no beginning and no end

Okay bastards sharpen your knives, I've been thinking again and we all know what that means

In an effort to broaden the value of eWar without touching current scout values, and to make the medium frames more diverse I have been playing with the mad science of changing the profile on the logistics frames, reducing it a bit so that there is more incentive for logi to run damps (and not brick tank) while trying to avoid having them mess with scout play.

Alright, general notion having been framed here are my opening thoughts, tell me what y'all feel about them and help me polish this up so it is worthwhile before I show it to CCP.

Reduce logistics base profile from 50 to 45 or 46. Aim is to have 3x damped logi hitting a modified profile of 29 which (correct me if I'm wrong) would still make them show up on proto scanners (even without the GalLogi bonus) and most non-bricked scout fits. However let them be under the scans of most medium and heavy frames promoting a reason to run more non-bricked logi fits.

In addition to the general question above (and telling me if my math is wrong as it sometimes is) I am wondering your thoughts on the following.

1. The GalLogi has 5 lows, would the added value of damps 4 and 5 be problematic in this context despite the stacking penalty?

2. The CalLogi has room to max buffer 5 complex shield extenders while still running 3x damps, does this added eWar potential (if their base profile were shifted 5 as suggested above) directly hinder scout play in some manner as it is not coming so directly at the cost of tank?

3. Is a net profile of 29 (when triple damped) a bad or good number to shoot for in the interests of bringing some medium frame eWar play into the picture without damaging the scout role? Why/Why not?

Looking forward to your input

Cheers,
Cross

Okay bastards sharpen your knives, I've been thinking again and we all know what that means

In an effort to broaden the value of eWar without touching current scout values, and to make the medium frames more diverse I have been playing with the mad science of changing the profile on the logistics frames, reducing it a bit so that there is more incentive for logi to run damps (and not brick tank) while trying to avoid having them mess with scout play.

Alright, general notion having been framed here are my opening thoughts, tell me what y'all feel about them and help me polish this up so it is worthwhile before I show it to CCP.

Reduce logistics base profile from 50 to 45 or 46. Aim is to have 3x damped logi hitting a modified profile of 29 which (correct me if I'm wrong) would still make them show up on proto scanners (even without the GalLogi bonus) and most non-bricked scout fits. However let them be under the scans of most medium and heavy frames promoting a reason to run more non-bricked logi fits.

In addition to the general question above (and telling me if my math is wrong as it sometimes is) I am wondering your thoughts on the following.

1. The GalLogi has 5 lows, would the added value of damps 4 and 5 be problematic in this context despite the stacking penalty?

2. The CalLogi has room to max buffer 5 complex shield extenders while still running 3x damps, does this added eWar potential (if their base profile were shifted 5 as suggested above) directly hinder scout play in some manner as it is not coming so directly at the cost of tank?

3. Is a net profile of 29 (when triple damped) a bad or good number to shoot for in the interests of bringing some medium frame eWar play into the picture without damaging the scout role? Why/Why not?

Looking forward to your input

Cheers,
Cross

Wait till you find my hidden distillery

Oddly I was looking at this the other wayGǪ as in Logi having a better Precision in order to catch light dampened scouts thereby reducing the Brick Tanking Slayer ScoutGǪ but never put the numbers to it

@ Cross

Added "Cross Math" tab here to demonstrate a range of base profile progressions, incrementing from 40 dB up to the current base scan profile of 50 dB. It appears that your objective values are already well within reach. Either our maths aren't matching or I've misunderstood what you're seeking to accomplish. I triple checked my calculations, but it could be my error. Please see the link and let me know.

Let's get the numbers straight before folks weigh in on this. o7

Imo logis should get a precision buff as opposed to a dampening buff. It's the domain of the scouts to be unseen, but everyone uses precision to one extent or another. Precision is necessary for the lighter suits, so it makes sense that the logistics get the second best precision, being the second weakest suits. It would also fit into their intended role as a support suit, and it would allow them to know when to retreat by being able to see threats coming.

I don't know if that's feasible numbers-wise though, so dampening works too.

I'm already seeing a lot of Logi and even Commando frames trying to do scout-y things. Cloak-REs, Cloak-Shotgun. It's pretty nonsensical, but the only reason for it is that these suits are able to fit the cloaks already and too many people playing this game are so worried about their K/D that they don't approach the game from a team-tactical viewpoint considering what roles the different frames are meant to fill, they're looking for the lowest risk. This means cloaks where possible with as much HP as possible. Which means gk.0 commando suits with cloaks and shotguns. Logistics suits with cloaks and REs and proto ScRs and Rail rifles. And that's just scratching the tip of the iceberg.

Now, specifically considering logistics frames, it's bad enough their EQ fitting bonus applies to cloaks. Giving them more incentive to try to be "heavy scouts" will, in my opinion, only bring back more of the "slayer logi" play. Relatively heavily tanked suits cloaking and running under MOST other suits' scan strength, dropping REs, rep hives and toting shotguns or ScRs with turbo buttons or Kaalakiota rails or Six Kin ACRs...

No thanks, man.

@ Cross

Added "Cross Math" tab here to demonstrate a range of base profile progressions, incrementing from 40 dB up to the current base scan profile of 50 dB. It appears that your objective values are already well within reach. Either our maths aren't matching or I've misunderstood what you're seeking to accomplish. I triple checked my calculations, but it could be my error. Please see the link and let me know.

Let's get the numbers straight before folks weigh in on this. o7

In view of the Logi as a support role, I agree that Precision is the better route. Precision bonus without squad-shared scan like scouts have. Give them damping and if they're playing Logi as support, i.e., running with a heavy, their being dampened won't help them - the heavy is a shining beacon of "here we are, come get us". Precision to see threats coming and be better able to communicate this to the heavy/squad they're supporting makes more sense to their role.

On a related note I am actually looking to get the bug which applies the logistics equipment reduction to the cloak fixed. As I understand it this is not working as intended. So that fix and this suggestion would roll out at the same time.
Are there any ways you can see opening up eWar play outside of scouts that you would not consider the creation of "heavy scouts"? Is the fix to the current logi discount on cloaks be meaningful enough to change your perspective on the matter?
Does a logi suit running 3x damps still count as heavily tanked in this context (could you give me a ball park of the HP you consider heavily tanked for the context of this discussion)?

Full Disclosure To be frank, calling out my own biases here; I do not think that REs are a scout exclusive bit of gear nor should, in my view their use be bound to a single role. In the same vein I do not see the ability to use any particular Light Weapon as heavily pertinent to a Medium or Light frame balance pass because everyone can use those weapons.

So, having called out my own biases, and asked what I hope are relevant questions, I await further response (oh, and to be clear, while I want answers to my questions, I am not closed to explanations of why my biases may not be agreed with)

Cheers,
Cross

Ok, so On Med-Frame Damps: *shudders in delight* Math, better than sex. Which I can say now that I'm getting it more often than I want.

The target number should be 3 damps + Ishukone cloak + Profile dampening V = 20 to 20.49

This would mean that they can get past Min, Gal, and Cal Scout passive and Gal-Logi active, but vulnerable to Amarr Scout or Focused.

19.5= X*0.9*0.9*0.5033
47.83 = X

20.49 = X * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.5033
50.26 = X

So any value of 48, 49, 0r 50 should work. . . Oh, hey, it's already 50

Full Disclosure To be frank, calling out my own biases here; I do not think that REs are a scout exclusive bit of gear nor should, in my view their use be bound to a single role. In the same vein I do not see the ability to use any particular Light Weapon as heavily pertinent to a Medium or Light frame balance pass because everyone can use those weapons.

So, having called out my own biases, and asked what I hope are relevant questions, I await further response (oh, and to be clear, while I want answers to my questions, I am not closed to explanations of why my biases may not be agreed with)

Cheers,
Cross

Ok, so On Med-Frame Damps: *shudders in delight* Math, better than sex. Which I can say now that I'm getting it more often than I want.

The target number should be 3 damps + Ishukone cloak + Profile dampening V = 20 to 20.49

This would mean that they can get past Min, Gal, and Cal Scout passive and Gal-Logi active, but vulnerable to Amarr Scout or Focused.

19.5= X*0.9*0.9*0.5033
47.83 = X

20.49 = X * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.5033
50.26 = X

So any value of 48, 49, 0r 50 should work. . . Oh, hey, it's already 50

Can a logi even fit those things in any real meaningful way? (If they're running nothing else it's not a realistic build)

I am starting to get this creepy feeling that CCPs current numbers may actually be right in this case... I... do not know what to do with this feeling.

EDIT: Sans cloak, in the case of Logi since IMO that shouldn't be a standard build even for damped logi suits (cloak being a scout toy), peg it to 45? (yes that is a totally sloppy way to do those numbers, but you'll do them better than I would anyway and I'm tired so I'm taking a shortcut).

Oh HELLLLLLLLL no! If the Scout is required to use the cloak for profile dampening purposes so does everyone else. Unless you want to pitch some changes to Rattibro saying Scouts shouldn't need the cloak to dampen against Focused Scanner- which would be much appreciated.

That would be a pretty big cuntpunt or kick in the balls for the Logi to not need the cloak to get to that level. Especially if you did do that, they could add the cloak to beat Amarr Scout scans.

The Logistics suits have 2 more fitting slots than Scout. I more dampener than Min/Amarr Scout to get the same value is ****** up

Would your view on that change at all if someone (who shall remain nameless) thinks that perhaps were the cloak to be made much more fully a scout based bit of gear it could conceivably get a bit more oomph back in its profile damp values?