In Dust, unlike other shooters, everything you use is a paid for asset. Similarly in EVE, everything you use is a paid for asset. Now somewhere along the way CCP realized that crashing your paid for assets into other player's paid for assets in an attempt to destroy them does not create good gameplay. So honestly, CCP, why must we reinvent the wheel here?

I propose we remove vehicle-to-vehicle collision damage and instead have players simply "bump off" like in EVE when you collide. Doing so would improve many gameplay aspects, which although some players of the trolling nature may enjoy, we all know are bad gameplay.

• When an enemy tank simply drives into a LAV to destroy it.
• When a friendly tank doesn't care about his surroundings and moves directly into a LAV and destroys it.
• When an LAV drives directly into a dropship trying to deploy/land and destroys it.
• When an enemy calls in a cheap dropship with the sole intention of ramming it into another dropship to destroy it.
• When a player places a cluster of remote explosives on the hood of an LAV, crashes into an HAV, and uses the destruction of his own LAV to trigger the detonation of his remote explosives.

All of these are bad gameplay. A couple of them a simply unnecessary hazards for LAV drivers, and a couple of them are super cheap and effective ways of dealing with an enemy vehicle presence that their team refuses to combat with traditional anti-vehicle options (AV weapons, remotes, and other vehicles). Note that on the subject of "jihad jeeping," I'm not saying it should be completely removed, but rather using the collision destruction of your LAV to detonate the explosives should be removed. You could still do such tactics by using proximity explosives or manually detonating your explosives.

I think if militia dropships can't ram advanced dropships successfully than militia shotguns shouldn't work on my proto heavy suit. It's just unfair that a cheaper weapon can kill me. How dare they. (And note, it really isn't any more or less effective than a proto shotgun. I'm dead either way, to be honest.)

Dropships are roughly the same mass. Whether specced out with the best gear or not, they should be destructible by each other in collision, regardless of fitting. Meanwhile, with your frigate-to-battleship mechanic, I'd agree a dropship should not kill an MCC on collision.

Bear in mind, that a 1 mil ISK badly fit frigate CAN kill a 20 mil ISK frigate. The battleship/frigate example, to be blunt, was dumb. ;)

Air is big, dropship pilots should be mindful of things around them. If they can't adequately do that, I'd rather give them more tools to detect incoming threats, rather than take away suicide ships and jihad jeeps and the like. These are the sorts of tools that allow newbies to strike at veterans even without that massive pile of skill points.

Dropships are roughly the same mass. Whether specced out with the best gear or not, they should be destructible by each other in collision, regardless of fitting. Meanwhile, with your frigate-to-battleship mechanic, I'd agree a dropship should not kill an MCC on collision.

Bear in mind, that a 1 mil ISK badly fit frigate CAN kill a 20 mil ISK frigate. The battleship/frigate example, to be blunt, was dumb. ;)

Air is big, dropship pilots should be mindful of things around them. If they can't adequately do that, I'd rather give them more tools to detect incoming threats, rather than take away suicide ships and jihad jeeps and the like. These are the sorts of tools that allow newbies to strike at veterans even without that massive pile of skill points.

Ramming in DUST is a completely valid tactic, and what makes sense in EVE, auto-thrusters to avoid collison, doesn't really make sense on the ground. Vehicle drivers should cry less about the fact that they're nearly indestructible except against other vehicles, and accept that other vehicles, including cheap ones, can and should kill them.

I can appreciate that having some sort of physical reaction is a must..... but I...simply put find this to be an exploit that players either not competent in vehicles or AV can exploit to ruin the game play of those who are.....

True but I cannot fit tracking disruption, and a Microwarp Drive, and fly at 3 km per Second into the side of an Apocalpyse to insta gib it.....can I?

No.

I can appreciate that having some sort of physical reaction is a must..... but I...simply put find this to be an exploit that players either not competent in vehicles or AV can exploit to ruin the game play of those who are.....

If tanks massacring infantry ruins gameplay for infantry players is unacceptable, how is it acceptable to allow someone to simple fly/drive into my much better fit vehicle for an instant kill?

except tanks massacring infantry does ruin the game for infantry

As current balance makes all vehicle use practically an exploit, you should really enjoy what you have before you get nerfed further. ;)

Unintentional mechanics are what makes New Eden what it is. It's a sandbox. The whole idea is for people to use creativity and smarts to defeat otherwise insurmountable foes. Jihad jeeps, ramming derpships, that's the very essence of this game.

Unintentional mechanics are what makes New Eden what it is. It's a sandbox. The whole idea is for people to use creativity and smarts to defeat otherwise insurmountable foes. Jihad jeeps, ramming derpships, that's the very essence of this game.

You are showing a particular bias that suggests to me you aren't looking at this mechanic objectively.

This.

Also, one balance issue does not justify other broken balance issues.

In Dust, unlike other shooters, everything you use is a paid for asset. Similarly in EVE, everything you use is a paid for asset. Now somewhere along the way CCP realized that crashing your paid for assets into other player's paid for assets in an attempt to destroy them does not create good gameplay. So honestly, CCP, why must we reinvent the wheel here?

I propose we remove vehicle-to-vehicle collision damage and instead have players simply "bump off" like in EVE when you collide. Doing so would improve many gameplay aspects, which although some players of the trolling nature may enjoy, we all know are bad gameplay.

• When an enemy tank simply drives into a LAV to destroy it.
• When a friendly tank doesn't care about his surroundings and moves directly into a LAV and destroys it.
• When an LAV drives directly into a dropship trying to deploy/land and destroys it.
• When an enemy calls in a cheap dropship with the sole intention of ramming it into another dropship to destroy it.
• When a player places a cluster of remote explosives on the hood of an LAV, crashes into an HAV, and uses the destruction of his own LAV to trigger the detonation of his remote explosives.

All of these are bad gameplay. A couple of them a simply unnecessary hazards for LAV drivers, and a couple of them are super cheap and effective ways of dealing with an enemy vehicle presence that their team refuses to combat with traditional anti-vehicle options (AV weapons, remotes, and other vehicles). Note that on the subject of "jihad jeeping," I'm not saying it should be completely removed, but rather using the collision destruction of your LAV to detonate the explosives should be removed. You could still do such tactics by using proximity explosives or manually detonating your explosives.

I must agree with the amarr, i've played for too long to be rammed by the first idiot able to pilot a DS.

This.

One balance issue does not justify other broken balance issues. Bad precedent for game play. Why skill in to a counter weapon (AV) or vehicle if all one needs to do is run a low or no cost vehicle in to something to defeat it? In addition it creates balancing issues that were not accounted for as far as we know when vehicles are designed.(armor > shield ).

HEY! I'm amarr. And I say being able to ram is okey dokey! So thanks for unconditionally agreeing with what I have to say.

Just remove collision damage and keep environmental damage so i can ram into people at full speed and make them crash. I don't need the kill, I just want to ram people.


But still keep it so that I can gingerly creep up on snipers and squash them.

This is perfectly fine with me. I approve of this. If you make me crash by ramming me, that's fine, I just hate blowing up on contact with another ship.

As am I. If you want to crash and bump me into the environment to kill me then ok, good for you. As long as it is not the act of the enemy dropship crashing into me that kills me, but rather the colliding into the environment, then there is nothing wrong.

I think if militia dropships can't ram advanced dropships successfully than militia shotguns shouldn't work on my proto heavy suit. It's just unfair that a cheaper weapon can kill me. How dare they. (And note, it really isn't any more or less effective than a proto shotgun. I'm dead either way, to be honest.)