DUST Search - Remove vehicle-to-vehicle collision

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Remove vehicle-to-vehicle collision

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8037	Posted - 2014.04.20 00:07:00 - [1] - Quote 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. Amarr are the good guys.
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1222	Posted - 2014.04.20 00:22:00 - [2] - Quote While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE. CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video. The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed. So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man. Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps. Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction. And so it goes.
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8039	Posted - 2014.04.20 00:29:00 - [3] - Quote When you say "this is Dust" are you implying "this is not EVE so we don't need all the same things?" Because what I am stating is not something that only applies to any single game. If you're paying any sort of in-game currency for something, as in they are not magically spawning entities, then being able to destroy them simply by crashing into them is not just bad gameplay, it is fundamentally broken gameplay as well. You want man to be inhumane to man? Sure, go ahead! But do it without broken gameplay. Amarr are the good guys.
Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2004	Posted - 2014.04.20 00:33:00 - [4] - Quote I hate this tactic... I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations. just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it... but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear? I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping? I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions. this game makes me sad....
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8039	Posted - 2014.04.20 00:37:00 - [5] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: I hate this tactic... I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations. just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it... but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear? I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping? I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions. I've used jihad jeeps before too as well as rammed an ADS with a MLT dropship. I knew this argument would come up when I created this thread, "You only want to remove it because you hate it." No, that is not the case at all. I hate when I go up against teams of full proto in pub matches but I don't want to remove it and I definitely don't support gear-restricted matches. So please, if you're going to argue against me here please do so with actual reasoning instead of "You just hate it." And yes, PC is pretty broken but that doesn't mean this isn't broken either. Multiple things can be broken at the same time, and I'm pretty sure the team that works on PC is not the same team that works on vehicle gameplay. Amarr are the good guys.
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8040	Posted - 2014.04.20 00:39:00 - [6] - Quote And for the record, why don't you read the entire OP and see that I'm not totally against jihad jeeps, just not in their current form. Amarr are the good guys.
Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2006	Posted - 2014.04.20 03:10:00 - [7] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: I hate this tactic... I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations. just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it... but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear? I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping? I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions. I've used jihad jeeps before too as well as rammed an ADS with a MLT dropship. I knew this argument would come up when I created this thread, "You only want to remove it because you hate it." No, that is not the case at all. I hate when I go up against teams of full proto in pub matches but I don't want to remove it and I definitely don't support gear-restricted matches. So please, if you're going to argue against me here please do so with actual reasoning instead of "You just hate it." And yes, PC is pretty broken but that doesn't mean this isn't broken either. Multiple things can be broken at the same time, and I'm pretty sure the team that works on PC is not the same team that works on vehicle gameplay. I did come at you with actual reasoning.... if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it.... so, if the real reason you want vehicle collision removed ISNT simply because you hate it, then lets hear the real reason why vehicle collision should be removed... because so far all I've heard you say is remove it because I hate it and then demand a real argument against why it should not be removed instead of giving a reason why it should be removed which is the proper forum etiquette since this is your QQ post. TELL US WHY VEHICLE COLLISION SHOULD BE REMOVED... this game makes me sad....
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8056	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:33:00 - [8] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it.... Seriously man, how am I supposed to argue with you if you can't even read the damn thread? Please quote one time where I said I hate it as my argument? That's right, I never did. I provided my reasoning and you choose to ignore it and substitute it with an argument for me. Amarr are the good guys.
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 339	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:39:00 - [9] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: I hate this tactic... I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations. just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it... but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear? I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping? I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions. Don't be daft. If my mlt dropsuit ran into your proto suit and broke its legs so we both died would you like that? Because that is what we are talking about. So HTFU and understand what we are even talking about. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Tonka Legacy Zincress Caps and Mercs 87	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:42:00 - [10] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: 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. [/list] I applaud anyone who does this. They are doing their team a favor, not being a troll for using their minds. Sometimes, this is what it takes to kill a tank. Sentinel: I am heavy weapons guy... Commando: I got a RR and a CR, Im so good. Logi: In it 4 the points and points only.

Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 339	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:44:00 - [11] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it.... Seriously man, how am I supposed to argue with you if you can't even read the damn thread? Please quote one time where I said I hate it as my argument? That's right, I never did. I provided my reasoning and you choose to ignore it and substitute it with an argument for me. Aero, beware. The troll is strong with this one. A good critic will always see both pros and cons of a proposed change. You seem inexperienced in real world matters Seymor. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
AmlSeb Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 58	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:47:00 - [12] - Quote Collision needs to be revamped as a whole not only vehicle to vehicle. The problem probably lies in the engine as afaik UR3 can't work with masses that well so that collision damage based on speed and mass is hard to implement @AmlSeb on Twitter BPO exchange: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1852003
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 339	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:51:00 - [13] - Quote AmlSeb wrote: Collision needs to be revamped as a whole not only vehicle to vehicle. The problem probably lies in the engine as afaik UR3 can't work with masses that well so that collision damage based on speed and mass is hard to implement Yea, I found out the other day as a heavy you don't even need to use inertia dampeners. Hit the ground like a boss and barely lost any armor. It repped up anyway. The true stealth drop. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Hecarim Van Hohen Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 1104	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:54:00 - [14] - Quote I only disagree with your first point, if a tanker can ram an LAV (way superior agility) that LAV deserves to be destroyed. All in all good thread with good points, +1 "Now I am become Dev, the locker of threads." -CCP Logibro t¢«
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 339	Posted - 2014.04.20 06:58:00 - [15] - Quote Hecarim Van Hohen wrote: I only disagree with your first point, if a tanker can ram an LAV (way superior agility) that LAV deserves to be destroyed. All in all good thread with good points, +1 Then what about tank on tank rams!? Those guys just cuddle puddle all over each other. It's ludicrous. If it is going to stay, then all must be affected. Anyway, if LAV destruction is what you want, then more than just little taps are going to be needed. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
alias lycan Arrogance. 22	Posted - 2014.04.20 08:34:00 - [16] - Quote I don't feel that vehicle collisions are game breaking but they do need some work. Dropships are an obvious example but there are others. When vehicles collide they should both receive damage. Tanks also shouldn't be able drive over each other either. I don't see anything wrong with removing friendly collision damage from pubs though since it seems like another form of friendly fire.
Hecarim Van Hohen Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 1105	Posted - 2014.04.20 09:05:00 - [17] - Quote Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: Then what about tank on tank rams!? Those guys just cuddle puddle all over each other. It's ludicrous. If it is going to stay, then all must be affected. Anyway, if LAV destruction is what you want, then more than just little taps are going to be needed. That **** (tank ramming) is just stupid, collision should happen between HAV's unlike our current "Imma drive over that tank there because lolcollision" (WoT has awesome ramming system) When I tank (rarely and poorly) I don't tap LAV's, I crush them under my treads, or that's how I see it. "Now I am become Dev, the locker of threads." -CCP Logibro t¢«
Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2011	Posted - 2014.04.20 10:11:00 - [18] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it.... Seriously man, how am I supposed to argue with you if you can't even read the damn thread? Please quote one time where I said I hate it as my argument? That's right, I never did. I provided my reasoning and you choose to ignore it and substitute it with an argument for me. you say it's bad gameplay, but you don't go into specifics of why its bad, other than your opinion... is it OP? is it a bug? is it an exploit? is it not working as intended in some way? the only thing close to an explanation is you saying its hazardous to LAVs... well, so are tanks... should we remove tanks? seriously man if you cant back your argument up and can only accuse people of not reading your crappy thread GTFO.... I'm trying to have a real discussion with you, even though you clearly don't deserve to be taken seriously. so heres one last chance, tell us why vehicle collision should be removed..... this game makes me sad....
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 5	Posted - 2014.04.20 13:12:00 - [19] - Quote I agree with some of the others here. It shouldn't be removed, just fixed up a bit.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2030	Posted - 2014.04.20 17:49:00 - [20] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE. CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video. The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed. So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man. Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps. Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction. EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2014	Posted - 2014.04.20 18:34:00 - [21] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: KalOfTheRathi wrote: While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE. CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video. The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed. So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man. Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps. Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction. EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid. no but you can bump ships out of alignment preventing them from warping, while your buddies blow him up collision in eve has consequences as should collisions in dust. I still haven't heard an actual reason from the OPQQer why it needs removal. this game makes me sad....
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 5	Posted - 2014.04.20 19:08:00 - [22] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid. no but you can bump ships out of alignment preventing them from warping, while your buddies blow him up collision in eve has consequences as should collisions in dust. I still haven't heard an actual reason from the OPQQer why it needs removal. I can tell you for certain that a little bump in a DS would send you flying like a ping-pong ball, and that is certainly a (potentially lethal) consequence. As for ground-vehicle collisions, I have no idea.
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 465	Posted - 2014.04.21 00:13:00 - [23] - Quote Making jihad jeeps incredibly impractical or nearly impossible to use (by requiring the REs to be manually detonated) is the same thing as removing them completely. Let us use the detonator without having to exit the LAV and maybe. Otherwise, hell no.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3445	Posted - 2014.04.21 11:45:00 - [24] - Quote Id be fine with that OP I play EVE and i cant suicide into another ship With my ADS landing is a ***** because enviromental damage is high and if anything takes me out its not AV its a MLT DS but the problem is even if we bounced off each other whats to say i wouldnt spiral into the ground and lose the ship anyways? With the LAV it doesnt matter, it bounces off the tank and the tank doesnt move
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2073	Posted - 2014.04.21 17:19:00 - [25] - Quote 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'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Kilo Shells G.L.O.R.Y RISE of LEGION 45	Posted - 2014.04.21 18:17:00 - [26] - Quote I have to say that OPs message was pretty clear to me. Destroying a vastly superior vehicle with the cheapest vehicle you can find and ramming into it is broken. Sure this is new Eden but what happened to risk vs reward. Imagine paying half a million isk to be rammed by someone who can pay nothing to instantly destroy you're investment. Was this LAV or DS driver better than me? Did he out play me? Did he have more SP? Did he spend more isk than me? Maybe he just put more effort and teamwork into it? But no, not a single one of these things is needed to run an LAV into a tank or ram an enemy Dropship True Caldari Assault forget to tell you, I left some remotes on your tank....
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2073	Posted - 2014.04.21 18:33:00 - [27] - Quote Kilo, gear level should offer an advantage, but not that huge of one that being rammed into doesn't destroy your vehicle. Skill and gameplay need to be what wins out, not gear and money. And suiciding a cheap vehicle to destroy a more expensive one is a perfectly valid gameplay tactic. Militia suits and weapons kill proto suits all the time. This is another instance of vehicle drivers assuming they should be immune to death and loss. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Kilo Shells G.L.O.R.Y RISE of LEGION 46	Posted - 2014.04.21 20:19:00 - [28] - Quote Now that I think about it I find getting rammed never happens to me, but I don't find it particularly "fair" someone in a starter fit doesn't kill a proto fit or any other fit by simply making contact with it. Having a single counter to every tank and dropship seems like a bit much True Caldari Assault forget to tell you, I left some remotes on your tank....
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2077	Posted - 2014.04.21 20:28:00 - [29] - Quote Shotguns are a counter to pretty much every heavy suit. Heck, REs are a counter to pretty much every dropsuit period. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 347	Posted - 2014.04.21 20:36:00 - [30] - Quote You still have to be decently good with any infantry based gear to get kills consistently against high tier suits. And 1 v 1 is even trickier. For a kamikaze DS all you have to do is crash.... At least make it so it takes a few rams or that you can only take down low HP vehicles. So if you have a gunner take the vehicle down a bit then you could crash into it. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment

Banjo Robertson Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 179	Posted - 2014.04.21 20:39:00 - [31] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: 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. Should we remove vehicle to infantry collision as well? you pay for your dropsuit asset and getting run over by a lav isnt fun at all, plus it leaves the lav completely intact.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2082	Posted - 2014.04.21 21:45:00 - [32] - Quote 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.) I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12549	Posted - 2014.04.21 21:52:00 - [33] - Quote enters thread reads Aero goodposting +1's everything leaves You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9611	Posted - 2014.04.21 21:59:00 - [34] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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.) I can agree with the sentiment...... but when it comes to ramming vehicles...... well it just strikes me as lazy gameplay. In EVE, oh god not EVE again....., yes smaller vessels can beat down large vessels, but if a frigate could suicide into a Battleship and destroy that asset easily...... would you see any other kind of gameplay? No, because its cheaper to pick up a frigate than the ammo to fit a turret on a similarly sized ship..... Now consider Dust. Free vehicles, Remotes, etc. Cheaper than a basic turret...... My simple question is how is this good gameplay? Answer is it is not. I personally am for collision mechanics, I feel ramming should be a thing. However in the case of dropships I would support the bumping mechanics. Consider it the inertia units of the machines reacting instantly and pushing your vessel away from an encroaching one, however a set amount of damage is done to the vehicle. I am a proponent/ all for the putting of power and utility back into AV, and IMO from and immersion standpoint, feel that's where ANTI Vehicle content should lie. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2084	Posted - 2014.04.22 01:14:00 - [35] - Quote 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. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 8	Posted - 2014.04.22 01:48:00 - [36] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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. To be honest, I would be fine with some sort of tool to see a ram-ship coming my way. The main problem is that I can see enough stuff to the sides of my ship (where most rams come from), so IMO this would fix that problem well enough.
Interplanetary Insanitarium 295	Posted - 2014.04.22 02:37:00 - [37] - Quote Vehicles humping other vehicles til they explode is not bad gameplay. It's totally legit. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so collisions should stay. Maybe remove vehicle-on-vehicle collision damage but leave any immediate disruption. That way if I hit a dropship with my derpship I can send it flying into the ground as I smash down on it without exploding. If fists were food you'd be full right now.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9617	Posted - 2014.04.22 02:47:00 - [38] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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. 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? "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2022	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:03:00 - [39] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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. bravo! +1 this game makes me sad....
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2085	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:08:00 - [40] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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..... As current balance makes all vehicle use practically an exploit, you should really enjoy what you have before you get nerfed further. ;) I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate

Adelia Lafayette Science For Death 775	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:10:00 - [41] - Quote I suggested a hard cap a while ago where only % of your total health could be taken in one collision. That way it takes 3-4 collisions before your dead. Assault dropship gets blown up.... (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ "Kitten this I'm out"... ..."I'm back"
Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2023	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:13:00 - [42] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: 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. 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 so at the most least until they fix that ramming your vehicle to oblivion should remain, however like so many of you love to say when eve mechanics wouldn't work in your selfish favor for dust," this is not eve " .... with that out of the way, how is vehicle collision an exploit? they would actually have to write code to make collision possible, or the explosive graphics afterward. no, I'm sorry collision is not an exploit, it can however be annoying, especially when a friendly tank goes out of his way to ram my LAV, but it seems like pretty sound physics to me, that me blowing up would be the result of that encounter so I cant knock it or ask for it to be removed....now, a heavy not being able to jump up a 1 inch incline... that's ridiculous and should be fixed, getting shot to death standing behind cove... yeah, fix that...or the sprint bug? or that fatal error crap? yeah ccp, work on those things... but, "remove vehicle collision because I don't like it"....????? what!? GTFO, my friend.... this game makes me sad....
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2085	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:19:00 - [43] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: except tanks massacring infantry does ruin the game for infantry Pretty much this. Anything that helps even that gap, such as one of the few ways to actually kill a tank or derpship without being a dedicated vehicle driver is well worthy of our continued support as a game mechanic. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9617	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:23:00 - [44] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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..... As current balance makes all vehicle use practically an exploit, you should really enjoy what you have before you get nerfed further. ;) I am not asking this because I want to be more powerful. Hell I have been starting thread on discussion HAV vulnerability on and off for months now.... I want to feel vulnerable again..... but this is not the right kind of vulnerable. Please don't lump me in with the crowd that actually suggests vehicle balance as it is now is fine. But using one unintentional mechanic to counter other unintentional mechanics is not something that promotes positive balance. You are showing a particular bias that suggests to me you aren't looking at this mechanic objectively. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2085	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:25:00 - [45] - Quote 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. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2023	Posted - 2014.04.22 04:02:00 - [46] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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. couldn't have said it better myself.... how boring would a game get that when you do "A" "B" always happens.... and unintentional or not, why fix this before vehicles get better balance if it is to be removed at all.... but if it was removed it would just make this game more bland.... this game makes me sad....
Interplanetary Insanitarium 295	Posted - 2014.04.22 04:04:00 - [47] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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. Well, that's going a bit far. Unintentional mechanics can break a game to the point of who can utilize it the quickest wins. I.E. CoD with quick scoping. Collisions aren't an unintentional mechanic, it's just really, really, really, really fun.... Like thinking about taking a speed of light ride. On the other hand saying vehicle ramming is cheap or lazy just because one person calls out a vehicle to suicide against another vehicle isn't accurate. It's high risk, high reward gameplay. Errbody need to get objective, yo. If fists were food you'd be full right now.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2086	Posted - 2014.04.22 04:42:00 - [48] - Quote A pretty large portion of the strategies used in EVE were not intended by the developers. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
SteelDark Knight Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad. 353	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:25:00 - [49] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2087	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:33:00 - [50] - Quote SteelDark Knight wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. My response is merely metered on the ridiculous claim that using collision as a tactic is somehow an "exploit" because it's one of the few ways to kill a vehicle with any modicum of success. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate

Draco Cerberus BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 867	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:43:00 - [51] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: 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. So sally haymaker decided to buy a brand new lexus and drive it down the freeway, has rage issues and decides the pos pinto in front of her is an issue and decides to ram it to get rid of it. Now both vehicles get damaged, the lexus hits a bodyshop for repairs and the pinto a scrapyard because who fixes pintos now a days. If someone wants to spend good isk to destroy your spamming tank tactics too bad for you buddy. It is a legitimate tactic used quite often in Eve via the Miner ganking tactics encouraged by Goons, James 315 and several people who are quite good players that I have flown with and like to encourage miners to not be idiots and fly what they can afford to replace (1.5-3bil isk spent on Gistum A-type mods makes the Hulk a more juicy target not a harder one). A Brave New Eden Forge a new destiny
noob cavman Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 1274	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:58:00 - [52] - Quote RAMMING SPEEEEED!!! or my personal favourite whilst ramming shield tanks with my maddie. I GOT TWO TICKETS TO PARADISE! I want to be a caveman! Ccp: DENIED YOU DRUNK Gö+GöüGö+ n+¦pâ+(`-ö´)n+ën+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ Jollys quirky inconsistent sidekick. dem spandex yo
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 1894	Posted - 2014.04.22 22:13:00 - [53] - Quote I must agree with the amarr, i've played for too long to be rammed by the first idiot able to pilot a DS. The unnamed new build it's so secret that nobody know what will be in it, even after patch notes.. \o/ summon me
Interplanetary Insanitarium 296	Posted - 2014.04.22 22:47:00 - [54] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I must agree with the amarr, i've played for too long to be rammed by the first idiot able to pilot a DS. 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. If fists were food you'd be full right now.
Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2061	Posted - 2014.04.22 22:53:00 - [55] - Quote SteelDark Knight wrote: True Adamance wrote: You are showing a particular bias that suggests to me you aren't looking at this mechanic objectively. 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 ). so then maybe av should be fixed before we even consider discussing the only viable tactic against vehicles? I will admit I am biased... I don't drive tanks, but I did skill into swarms which are almost useless, so if the only way I can delay a tanker going 60/2 is to collide with him why shouldn't I? and what right do tankers have to say to remove it when they are so OP on the field? this game makes me sad....
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 8	Posted - 2014.04.23 01:01:00 - [56] - Quote Interplanetary Insanitarium wrote: shaman oga wrote: I must agree with the amarr, i've played for too long to be rammed by the first idiot able to pilot a DS. 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.
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8067	Posted - 2014.04.23 06:21:00 - [57] - Quote Finn Colman wrote: Interplanetary Insanitarium wrote: shaman oga wrote: I must agree with the amarr, i've played for too long to be rammed by the first idiot able to pilot a DS. 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. Amarr are the good guys.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2120	Posted - 2014.04.23 07:06:00 - [58] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: 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. If you intersect violently with another dropship, you should die. Period. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 1902	Posted - 2014.04.23 07:34:00 - [59] - Quote I haven't any problem with DS who crush people, i crush snipers or roof campers and they deserve it. I have a problem when your strategy to kill my vehicle is to kill yourself (destroy your assets) in order to kill me or when friendly vehicles collide with you dealing huge damage. I would insert inertia dampeners on vehicles and then proceed to eliminate collision damage. If someone pushes my vehicle against a building i have no problem, as long as they don't use this tecnique as a kamikaze, if you land on a narrow path i will try to push you down, but pushing is different from nose diving into your vehicle. The unnamed new build it's so secret that nobody know what will be in it, even after patch notes.. \o/ summon me
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 60	Posted - 2014.04.23 12:11:00 - [60] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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.) You're not a pilot are you? Try to believe it's fair for investing 10+ million sp into vehicles just to use an ADS viably, only to rammed by a militia gorgon that is also not even a tenth of the price in isk. Also, ADS are not advanced frames, they are standard. They are the same as unlocking an assault suit when getting level 3 in the basic frames, which also unlocks logistics, which are obviously not advanced suits. Also, militia shotguns are terrible against heavies, and the shotgunner is quite easy to kill. Awareness... practice it.

SteelDark Knight Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad. 353	Posted - 2014.04.23 13:37:00 - [61] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: SteelDark Knight wrote: True Adamance wrote: You are showing a particular bias that suggests to me you aren't looking at this mechanic objectively. 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 ). so then maybe av should be fixed before we even consider discussing the only viable tactic against vehicles? I will admit I am biased... I don't drive tanks, but I did skill into swarms which are almost useless, so if the only way I can delay a tanker going 60/2 is to collide with him why shouldn't I? and what right do tankers have to say to remove it when they are so OP on the field? I am saying something like that, yes. AV requires better balance but in turn collision also causes balance issues. Both need addressed. As far as the argument about the Eve sandbox goes I have nothing against people using their brains to discover tactics that are outside the norm. However, I am sure that when these creative minds come up with tactics that unbalance the game they are addressed in Eve as they should be here.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2125	Posted - 2014.04.23 13:56:00 - [62] - Quote Temias Mercurial wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: 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.) You're not a pilot are you? Try to believe it's fair for investing 10+ million sp into vehicles just to use an ADS viably, only to rammed by a militia gorgon that is also not even a tenth of the price in isk. Also, ADS are not advanced frames, they are standard. They are the same as unlocking an assault suit when getting level 3 in the basic frames, which also unlocks logistics, which are obviously not advanced suits. Also, militia shotguns are terrible against heavies, and the shotgunner is quite easy to kill. Awareness... practice it. Dude, I've got 38 million skill points invested in infantry suits. If I run proto, I'm spending half as much as an ADS on one suit. And I guarantee you I'm more than twice as likely to lose my suit as your ADS. There's all sorts of completely bullkitten ways to die in DUST. You shouldn't be immune to that in the air either. This is an FPS. You should go into EVERY match, expecting to die. If you aren't losing your ADS every match, it's probably because you're overpowered. There's a huge veteran/newbie disparity that is hurting the game. For an ADS pilot to go forth and cry that his skillpoints should make him immune to newbies is downright crazy. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 60	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:16:00 - [63] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: SteelDark Knight wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. My response is merely metered on the ridiculous claim that using collision as a tactic is somehow an "exploit" because it's one of the few ways to kill a vehicle with any modicum of success. I would agree with this, but it's not that difficult to destroy vehicles now. Ramming is now just a cheap, easy, and effortless way to dispose of vehicles, especially dropships, which are pathetically easy to destroy. I rarely see Jihad's anymore due to how AV balance is now quite... balanced. I see tanks getting destroyed by swarm launchers, planted remotes, AV grenades, and forge guns all the time. The fact that we still have this cheap ramming system is appauling. We used to have dogfights in this game. That was amazing fun. Now we play a game of chicken, whoever decides to ram first and hopefully survive. If you're a Python, there is no surviving. If you're an Incubus, you have a good chance, but only slightly. I loved this game when it required skill to kill a pilot...
xXGXx MAN RisingSuns Dark Taboo 5	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:26:00 - [64] - Quote But it's pretty funny when a blueberry drives around a corner in his lav and crashes into my tank.. Improvise, adapt, overcome! R.I.P-MAG Amarr Logibro
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2125	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:28:00 - [65] - Quote Temias: I haven't seen a vehicle die to swarms since 1.6. Forge guns are functional now though. If you have Proficiency 4 in them or what have you anyways. Cheap tactics, like it or not, belong in the game. I actually don't think dropships should dogfight, as we should have fighters for that. And that is coming at some point. Dropships should be flying bricks that are bad at aerial combat, but ramming is a good option for them if they need it. It shouldn't require any more skill to kill a pilot than it requires to kill my dropsuit. Fact. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 60	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:29:00 - [66] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Temias Mercurial wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: 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.) You're not a pilot are you? Try to believe it's fair for investing 10+ million sp into vehicles just to use an ADS viably, only to rammed by a militia gorgon that is also not even a tenth of the price in isk. Also, ADS are not advanced frames, they are standard. They are the same as unlocking an assault suit when getting level 3 in the basic frames, which also unlocks logistics, which are obviously not advanced suits. Also, militia shotguns are terrible against heavies, and the shotgunner is quite easy to kill. Awareness... practice it. Dude, I've got 38 million skill points invested in infantry suits. If I run proto, I'm spending half as much as an ADS on one suit. And I guarantee you I'm more than twice as likely to lose my suit as your ADS. There's all sorts of completely bullkitten ways to die in DUST. You shouldn't be immune to that in the air either. This is an FPS. You should go into EVERY match, expecting to die. If you aren't losing your ADS every match, it's probably because you're overpowered. There's a huge veteran/newbie disparity that is hurting the game. For an ADS pilot to go forth and cry that his skillpoints should make him immune to newbies is downright crazy. A proto heavy suit is more durable than a std dropship, and has a far greater chance of surviving encounters when comparing infantry and vehicles. Also, you can still profit if you lose a suit. It's next to impossible as a pilot to profit at all. To profit, you're forced to play a different role. You are not forced to play a different game in order to succeed in this game as infantry. Also, my sp is divided between infantry and vehicles. However, due to the skill tree and information of other players, putting more into my dropship is next to pointless, as the improvement is hardly minimal. The design and thought into the role is lacking and pathetic. A good infantry player can dominate with prototype gear, never die, for a third of the price.
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 60	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:37:00 - [67] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Temias: I haven't seen a vehicle die to swarms since 1.6. Forge guns are functional now though. If you have Proficiency 4 in them or what have you anyways. Cheap tactics, like it or not, belong in the game. I actually don't think dropships should dogfight, as we should have fighters for that. And that is coming at some point. Dropships should be flying bricks that are bad at aerial combat, but ramming is a good option for them if they need it. It shouldn't require any more skill to kill a pilot than it requires to kill my dropsuit. Fact. I've seen plenty of vehicles die to swarm launchers with the reduction to hardeners. Considering that the majority of players were very dependent upon hardeners (FOTM) and never learn to use anything other than them, they are incapable of using anything else effectively. In my experience, swarms are effective against LAVS and Tanks. It is debatable as to whether or not they're balanced against dropships, but that is not the point of this thread. The point is the validity of a cheap tactic when valid ones exist.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2125	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:47:00 - [68] - Quote Cheap tactics are an integral part of the game. Unless you'd like to remove remote explosives, grenades, cloaks, forge guns, mass drivers, sniper rifles, and um... ADSes and tanks. The idea that a proto heavy suit is more durable than a dropship is hilarious and ridiculous. It takes me... one shot to kill a heavy suit with my forge gun. Any heavy suit, by the way. No dropship dies in less than three. No dropship requires more than ONE shot before they're out of range to go heal back up. The ONLY time it's even possible to kill an ADS is when the ADS pilot isn't watching their health bar, and sticks around longer than they should've. If you're dying in an ADS, you should be reevaluating your playstyle. It takes like three seconds to outrange any AV weapon in the game. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 9	Posted - 2014.04.23 15:12:00 - [69] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Temias: I haven't seen a vehicle die to swarms since 1.6. Forge guns are functional now though. If you have Proficiency 4 in them or what have you anyways. Cheap tactics, like it or not, belong in the game. I actually don't think dropships should dogfight, as we should have fighters for that. And that is coming at some point. Dropships should be flying bricks that are bad at aerial combat, but ramming is a good option for them if they need it. It shouldn't require any more skill to kill a pilot than it requires to kill my dropsuit. Fact. May I remind you that an ADS has a nose-gun so that it should have an edge in dogfights... Read the description, and then tell me it doesn't say that. Let me recap my position on this. If you can hit me multiple times (with a ram ship), fine. If you bump me into an environmental hazard, alright. I don't care how many SP I spent, just how much ISK and how much I need to work to make back the enourmous deficit of losing one ADS. An ADS is not quite an upgrade, and if there were a proto ADS (and it were the price of the current basic) then and only then can you use the "if you're gonna use proto, expect to pay for proto" argument. As it stands, I have a basic ship that costs about 400k ISK, and falls if hit more than 3 times, by anything, assuming I properly manage my modules, before I die on the second shot. Trust me, if you do AV right, you can keep me out of the air with little effort, and no kamikazes.
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 60	Posted - 2014.04.23 15:21:00 - [70] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Cheap tactics are an integral part of the game. Unless you'd like to remove remote explosives, grenades, cloaks, forge guns, mass drivers, sniper rifles, and um... ADSes and tanks. The idea that a proto heavy suit is more durable than a dropship is hilarious and ridiculous. It takes me... one shot to kill a heavy suit with my forge gun. Any heavy suit, by the way. No dropship dies in less than three. No dropship requires more than ONE shot before they're out of range to go heal back up. The ONLY time it's even possible to kill an ADS is when the ADS pilot isn't watching their health bar, and sticks around longer than they should've. If you're dying in an ADS, you should be reevaluating your playstyle. It takes like three seconds to outrange any AV weapon in the game. Except that a dropship can be destroyed with two breach forge gun shots, often, if there is more than one AV player, the dropship is gone before the pilot can react at all. Also rail guns can one shot you. Also, a bricked gallente heavy was a natural resistance towards rail weapons, which includes forge guns, and can survive most forge hits.

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2125	Posted - 2014.04.23 15:27:00 - [71] - Quote I haven't seen a dropship destroyed before the pilot can react to it since... well, it's been a while, I can't remember. I also haven't found a heavy that didn't die to my forge in one shot yet, unless I only hit them with splash. I don't think it's fair dropships are naturally more robust than other players, so let's make a deal: We'll get rid of collison damage when I can one shot your dropship with my forge gun. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 354	Posted - 2014.04.23 16:57:00 - [72] - Quote Most of us don't want collision damage removed, just changed. There is no collision damage one EVE after all. Yea a ADS can run at the first sign of AV and prolly never die, but so can any suit. All you have to do is see another player and just turn and run. The point is that you are suppose to engage targets, especially ones hard for other suits to take down, like heavies (who sometimes have forges as they are AI too). Some fittings can be OHK by breach (1.7, I haven't used the same fitting since then). The concept is one of pure unforgiveness ATM. If you slip up a for a second your ship is gone. It's an interesing mechanic that isn't present in many other roles, but I find it exhilarating for time to time. Te biggest issue for me is not that you can swat me, it's the cost of the ship that's bringing me down. Even with a basic turret the thing is still near 400k isk (you wouldn't last with basic shields and could rarely engage with basic hardeners so I use high tier armor). There is just no room to lose more than one every 3-5 games, and if you are running at the drop of a hat then you will never make any isk. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 61	Posted - 2014.04.23 16:57:00 - [73] - Quote Soraya Xel, how often do you play Dust? I personally play 3+ hours every day. If player only had to walk up to you, never shoot, aim, or do anything at all, just touched you, and you died, how ridiculously stupid would that be? Need I remind you how ****** murder taxing was? It was stupid, effortless, and just plain ridiculous. How to kill 20+ people while driving less than 5mph. That's how you did it, and your prey would die instantly.
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 9	Posted - 2014.04.23 18:44:00 - [74] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I haven't seen a dropship destroyed before the pilot can react to it since... well, it's been a while, I can't remember. I also haven't found a heavy that didn't die to my forge in one shot yet, unless I only hit them with splash. I don't think it's fair dropships are naturally more robust than other players, so let's make a deal: We'll get rid of collison damage when I can one shot your dropship with my forge gun. So a machine should only be as tough as a clone that is at least 8 times smaller? Or are you trying to make a joke? I can't tell because it's such an absurd argument. Keep in mind, that the pilots mainly want a decrease in collision damage, that is to say, not a full nullification.
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 355	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:10:00 - [75] - Quote Finn Colman wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: I haven't seen a dropship destroyed before the pilot can react to it since... well, it's been a while, I can't remember. I also haven't found a heavy that didn't die to my forge in one shot yet, unless I only hit them with splash. I don't think it's fair dropships are naturally more robust than other players, so let's make a deal: We'll get rid of collison damage when I can one shot your dropship with my forge gun. So a machine should only be as tough as a clone that is at least 8 times smaller? Or are you trying to make a joke? I can't tell because it's such an absurd argument. Keep in mind, that the pilots mainly want a decrease in collision damage, that is to say, not a full nullification. Or a price reduction. We want skilled dogfights basically. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2137	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:32:00 - [76] - Quote Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: Yea a ADS can run at the first sign of AV and prolly never die, but so can any suit. Shotguns (with cloaks), sniper rifles, forge guns. Also tanks and ADSes, which you can rarely run from, and will definitely one-shot you. So... no, not like any suit. Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: The biggest issue for me is not that you can swat me, it's the cost of the ship that's bringing me down. Even with a basic turret the thing is still near 400k isk (you wouldn't last with basic shields and could rarely engage with basic hardeners so I use high tier armor). My AV fit runs as much as 250,000 ISK a suit, and I lose four or five of them trying to kill one ADS. Please, shelve this complaint, it's really sad. Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: There is just no room to lose more than one every 3-5 games, and if you are running at the drop of a hat then you will never make any isk. You should be dying at least once a game. This is a first-person shooter. There should not be someone who is nearly impossible to kill in any given game. This idea is downright ludicrous. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2137	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:35:00 - [77] - Quote Finn Colman wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: I haven't seen a dropship destroyed before the pilot can react to it since... well, it's been a while, I can't remember. I also haven't found a heavy that didn't die to my forge in one shot yet, unless I only hit them with splash. I don't think it's fair dropships are naturally more robust than other players, so let's make a deal: We'll get rid of collison damage when I can one shot your dropship with my forge gun. So a machine should only be as tough as a clone that is at least 8 times smaller? Or are you trying to make a joke? I can't tell because it's such an absurd argument. Keep in mind, that the pilots mainly want a decrease in collision damage, that is to say, not a full nullification. Or a price reduction. Price reduction is fine. ISK doesn't work for balance. I'm okay if every vehicle costs the same as a dropsuit. But vehicles should die as easily as dropsuits. There's no game design where a player should be able to be better than another player ALL THE TIME. That's where tanks and ADSes sit. They have more health, more damage, they move faster, and less enemy players have the skills or fits to damage them. Right now, everyone not skilled in vehicles is an idiot, because of the sheer ridiculousness of how OP vehicles are. Vehicles are currently superior to dropsuits in every way, and vehicle users in this thread are crying for someone to nerf their only vulnerability? It's crazy. It's absolutely crazy. Vehicles will not be balanced until they die as often as dropsuits do, on average. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 355	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:54:00 - [78] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Finn Colman wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: I haven't seen a dropship destroyed before the pilot can react to it since... well, it's been a while, I can't remember. I also haven't found a heavy that didn't die to my forge in one shot yet, unless I only hit them with splash. I don't think it's fair dropships are naturally more robust than other players, so let's make a deal: We'll get rid of collison damage when I can one shot your dropship with my forge gun. So a machine should only be as tough as a clone that is at least 8 times smaller? Or are you trying to make a joke? I can't tell because it's such an absurd argument. Keep in mind, that the pilots mainly want a decrease in collision damage, that is to say, not a full nullification. Or a price reduction. Price reduction is fine. ISK doesn't work for balance. I'm okay if every vehicle costs the same as a dropsuit. But vehicles should die as easily as dropsuits. There's no game design where a player should be able to be better than another player ALL THE TIME. That's where tanks and ADSes sit. They have more health, more damage, they move faster, and less enemy players have the skills or fits to damage them. Right now, everyone not skilled in vehicles is an idiot, because of the sheer ridiculousness of how OP vehicles are. Vehicles are currently superior to dropsuits in every way, and vehicle users in this thread are crying for someone to nerf their only vulnerability? It's crazy. It's absolutely crazy. Vehicles will not be balanced until they die as often as dropsuits do, on average. That's a fair perspective. If vehicles remained in their current power, what would make you feel better about death from them? Are you frustrated about possible KDR effects? Or the amount of isk you need to combat vehicles? Imagine it were more like cod, were KDR and isk lose all their properties. Would you still find vehicles offensive? And to make our conversation clear, you are only talking about vehicles in pubs , PC, or both. As they interact much differently in either type of game. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 61	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:55:00 - [79] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: Yea a ADS can run at the first sign of AV and prolly never die, but so can any suit. Shotguns (with cloaks), sniper rifles, forge guns. Also tanks and ADSes, which you can rarely run from, and will definitely one-shot you. So... no, not like any suit. Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: The biggest issue for me is not that you can swat me, it's the cost of the ship that's bringing me down. Even with a basic turret the thing is still near 400k isk (you wouldn't last with basic shields and could rarely engage with basic hardeners so I use high tier armor). My AV fit runs as much as 250,000 ISK a suit, and I lose four or five of them trying to kill one ADS. Please, shelve this complaint, it's really sad. Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: There is just no room to lose more than one every 3-5 games, and if you are running at the drop of a hat then you will never make any isk. You should be dying at least once a game. This is a first-person shooter. There should not be someone who is nearly impossible to kill in any given game. This idea is downright ludicrous. Why do you waste so much isk? I use an ADV Forge gun on a STD sentinal and dispose of dropships with relative ease. My dual swarm Commando can quickly dispose or at least frighten most tanks. If you're losing that much isk trying to deal with one single ADS, you're doing something quite wrong. If everything you say is true, then your arguement is rather falsified or invalid when stating that vehicles are OP, when you seem incapable of dealing with them at all. I hate to say this, but you really need change your approach to vehicles, and not needlessly die. Get better and improve; otherwise, anything you say from here on out is complete bullshit.
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 355	Posted - 2014.04.23 20:14:00 - [80] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: Yea a ADS can run at the first sign of AV and prolly never die, but so can any suit. Shotguns (with cloaks), sniper rifles, forge guns. Also tanks and ADSes, which you can rarely run from, and will definitely one-shot you. So... no, not like any suit. Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: The biggest issue for me is not that you can swat me, it's the cost of the ship that's bringing me down. Even with a basic turret the thing is still near 400k isk (you wouldn't last with basic shields and could rarely engage with basic hardeners so I use high tier armor). My AV fit runs as much as 250,000 ISK a suit, and I lose four or five of them trying to kill one ADS. Please, shelve this complaint, it's really sad. Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: There is just no room to lose more than one every 3-5 games, and if you are running at the drop of a hat then you will never make any isk. You should be dying at least once a game. This is a first-person shooter. There should not be someone who is nearly impossible to kill in any given game. This idea is downright ludicrous. When I run ground I rarely get killed by snipers, tanks or ADS. I often deter tanks, have taken down pythons with mlt forge, and get wiped by cloaks all the time. I rarely get hit by ADS as I know how to avoid their attention and fire. I never run a suit that costs more than 50k. If you bring a 250k suit into a pub to fight AV and don't have proper squad support then that is unwise. As most vehicles do not tier down to basic easily. Most vehicles are hence proto and as such you will need support to fight them. I don't care ago KDR or death. I wouldn't mind at all if I got shot down 5 times a game if my ships cost 25-50 k isk. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2138	Posted - 2014.04.23 20:18:00 - [81] - Quote Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: That's a fair perspective. If vehicles remained in their current power, what would make you feel better about death from them? Are you frustrated about possible KDR effects? Or the amount of isk you need to combat vehicles? Imagine it were more like cod, were KDR and isk lose all their properties. Would you still find vehicles offensive? And to make our conversation clear, you are only talking about vehicles in pubs , PC, or both. As they interact much differently in either type of game. It's not about the KDR, but it is about the kill. If you kill me, I may have a distinct desire to kill you back. How do you think it feels to be killed by someone you have no functional ability to get revenge on? Vehicle drivers have never really been in that position, they've always been able to kill infantry. But only a small subcategory of infantry can even damage vehicles. Speaking of CoD (a bad example, because there's not really player-driven vehicles), look at Titanfall (made by the CoD devs, actually). V/AV balance in that game is a model example that CCP should look to. Vehicles feel giant, powerful, etc. But they're completely balanced with infantry. You might note that in Titanfall every single player is always carrying an AV weapon, and there's even a method for you to open a vulnerability on an enemy titan that will let you kill it even with your sidearm! That's right, every single player has two different ways to combat a Titan as infantry. And that's not even counting the ability to call in their own Titan. In DUST, vehicles are a special pony class that gets to be better in every way, and also takes drastically reduced damage from most other classes. It's incredibly amazing that vehicles were ever made in this game in the way that they are. And with the exception of LAVs and dropships for rapid transport, vehicles don't have a defined role. Tanks and ADSes are simply "superior dropsuits", one of which can also fly. Meanwhile, snipers can only do long-range combat, shotguns can only do CQC, and swarms can only do AV. At the same time, tanks and ADSes can do... CQC, long range combat, AND anti-vehicle, all with one fit. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2138	Posted - 2014.04.23 20:47:00 - [82] - Quote Oh, I forgot to answer your first and last questions, Varjac. At their current power, I'd have to expect that vehicles require a number of players to use them equivalent to the power they have. For instance, I am fine with a tank requiring three AV working together to reliably kill it. But if that's the case, tanks should require three people aboard. In a game where each team is limited to 16v16, you can't bum rush folks with lots of weaker classes to beat a bigger one. So each player needs to equal a single player. I have a problem where a single player is allowed to be more powerful than another player wholesale. So, if you want to maintain the current power of vehicles, they should require more players to operate them well. (For tanks, decoupling the main gun from the driver's seat would be a big step in this direction.) With regards to pubs vs. PC balance, the issues I'm seeing crop up primarily in pubs, but are sometimes seen in PC as well. The issue with pubs is that there's no guarantee of vehicle support or equivalent vehicle support on either side. And since it isn't your team, there's nothing you can do to ensure you have adequate vehicle support unless your particular squad is the vehicle support. In PC, you pretty much have to assemble your team with vehicle support in order to match up with the enemy's vehicle support. If you don't, you will see the same problems people see in pubs. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 10	Posted - 2014.04.23 20:47:00 - [83] - Quote It's not about the KDR, but it is about the kill. If you kill me, I may have a distinct desire to kill you back. How do you think it feels to be killed by someone you have no functional ability to get revenge on?[/quote] How I feel everytime I call in my ADS which gets instantly shot down...
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2138	Posted - 2014.04.23 20:50:00 - [84] - Quote Finn Colman wrote: How I feel everytime I call in my ADS which gets instantly shot down... Your ADS can kill every player in the game. You can kill scouts, logis, heavies, assault suits, etc. with relative ease. Meanwhile, most of those suits cannot kill you. At all. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 11	Posted - 2014.04.23 20:52:00 - [85] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Finn Colman wrote: How I feel everytime I call in my ADS which gets instantly shot down... Your ADS can kill every player in the game. You can kill scouts, logis, heavies, assault suits, etc. with relative ease. Meanwhile, most of those suits cannot kill you. At all. If only I could land a hit in this drifty thing... but, that's a personal problem.
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 355	Posted - 2014.04.23 22:20:00 - [86] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: That's a fair perspective. If vehicles remained in their current power, what would make you feel better about death from them? Are you frustrated about possible KDR effects? Or the amount of isk you need to combat vehicles? Imagine it were more like cod, were KDR and isk lose all their properties. Would you still find vehicles offensive? And to make our conversation clear, you are only talking about vehicles in pubs , PC, or both. As they interact much differently in either type of game. It's not about the KDR, but it is about the kill. If you kill me, I may have a distinct desire to kill you back. How do you think it feels to be killed by someone you have no functional ability to get revenge on? Vehicle drivers have never really been in that position, they've always been able to kill infantry. But only a small subcategory of infantry can even damage vehicles. Speaking of CoD (a bad example, because there's not really player-driven vehicles), look at Titanfall (made by the CoD devs, actually). V/AV balance in that game is a model example that CCP should look to. Vehicles feel giant, powerful, etc. But they're completely balanced with infantry. You might note that in Titanfall every single player is always carrying an AV weapon, and there's even a method for you to open a vulnerability on an enemy titan that will let you kill it even with your sidearm! That's right, every single player has two different ways to combat a Titan as infantry. And that's not even counting the ability to call in their own Titan. In DUST, vehicles are a special pony class that gets to be better in every way, and also takes drastically reduced damage from most other classes. It's incredibly amazing that vehicles were ever made in this game in the way that they are. And with the exception of LAVs and dropships for rapid transport, vehicles don't have a defined role. Tanks and ADSes are simply "superior dropsuits", one of which can also fly. Meanwhile, snipers can only do long-range combat, shotguns can only do CQC, and swarms can only do AV. At the same time, tanks and ADSes can do... CQC, long range combat, AND anti-vehicle, all with one fit. I see. I understand your position. A point of concern. If vehicles needed multiple people to operate, then all vehicles would only allow teammates access, as you know how blueberries just mess things up (no more picking up randoms in any vehicle). What would you do when a tank pulls up and then multiple people hop out of it and mow down the AV anyways then hop back in (like a heavy in LAV) Or imagine the accuracy increase in the nose gunner on an ADS (blaster tanks too). The hop out issue wouldn't be as common in an ADS, but it might. This would also mean that the vehicle owner is also the driver, and that's all he would ideally do, unless he hops out while teammates are on his guns. But basically the whole WP system would have to be redone, as assists just are not going to cut it. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2141	Posted - 2014.04.23 23:13:00 - [87] - Quote Varjac, the point of requiring team play isn't to make them less powerful, the point of teamplay is for that power to come from coordination, rather than a vehicle simply being overpowered. If you have tank gunners and drivers coordinating, it makes sense for them to be as lethal as they are. Long-term, what really needs to happen, is the anti-infantry component of vehicles like tanks needs to be nerfed into oblivion, and them take on a purely anti-vehicle, anti-installation, and anti-barrier role. But for that to make sense, that needs to be a critical part of gameplay, which currently, it's not. The game needs to change to the point where vehicles have a crucial purpose in the progression of the game mode, that doesn't involve infantry slaying. (Essentially, I want tanks to be heavy artillery for assaulting fortress-like defensive emplacements and killing defense turrets that last more than the first 30 seconds of the game.) But until such game modes are possible, tanks and ADSes need to be brought down to realistic proportions of their capabilities for the fact that this is a 16v16 game, and a single player should never be completely superior to another player. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 355	Posted - 2014.04.24 01:45:00 - [88] - Quote Xel, I don't believe that transferring power from solo to team and basing power off coordination will change anything. One tank with a practiced crew would be as lethal as two solo tankers. And few people would have the peer capitol to field there own tank, which would reduce the number of tanks, but almost guarantee one side will not field a single tank ever. The idea sounds great in concept. But there are simply not enough players who seek that kind of teamwork in pubs. What you want is great. I like the sound of sieging a fortress and dreaming of a vast 40k like landscape where vehicles have a larger purpose. But I don't think that Dust 514 will ever be like that. I believe the best response to vehicle v infantry balance is to design maps were 50% of the map provides excellent defense for infantry. And not just near objectives, but to and from. Vehicles need to be blocked from free roam and infantry need an "off limits zone." This would mean that if a team spams vehicles then only half of the objectives are easily defended and if you team doesn't call any vehicles they will have an infantry fight elsewhere on the map where vehicles can not participate. Your team might not win as it didn't field vehicles to fight the opposition and capture the more vulnerable objectives. But at the same time your team is not punished by vehicle players as the objectives you push are protected from vehicles. What do you think? FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2145	Posted - 2014.04.24 02:05:00 - [89] - Quote The reality is that the game won't be balanced as long as it takes a tank less time to kill me than for me to kill it, even if I spec specifically into the role of killing tanks. There shouldn't be anywhere vehicles "easily murder" other players. That's the thing. Vehicles don't have anywhere near the challenges that infantry face. The reason this topic has gotten to a more general sense is this: In a game where vehicles are already the most protected, difficult to destroy assets on the field, what in the world is someone doing asking for a nerf for the single vulnerability that vehicles actually have? Every dedicated vehicle user should take a month off and play infantry. Very few of them will survive the month. It's agonizingly painful being mowed down by vehicles in every other match and having almost nothing you can do about it. I can't fly a dropship even well enough to jihad it into an ADS, but if I could, I would. Because I have almost no other options. With Proficiency 4 into forge guns, I only get a kill when the ADS is being really really dumb. Because they have way too much opportunity to get away. And it's ridiculous that I have to die several times a match to an ADS, and dropship pilots believe that only dying once every three to five matches is balanced. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 62	Posted - 2014.04.24 03:56:00 - [90] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: The reality is that the game won't be balanced as long as it takes a tank less time to kill me than for me to kill it, even if I spec specifically into the role of killing tanks. There shouldn't be anywhere vehicles "easily murder" other players. That's the thing. Vehicles don't have anywhere near the challenges that infantry face. The reason this topic has gotten to a more general sense is this: In a game where vehicles are already the most protected, difficult to destroy assets on the field, what in the world is someone doing asking for a nerf for the single vulnerability that vehicles actually have? Every dedicated vehicle user should take a month off and play infantry. Very few of them will survive the month. It's agonizingly painful being mowed down by vehicles in every other match and having almost nothing you can do about it. I can't fly a dropship even well enough to jihad it into an ADS, but if I could, I would. Because I have almost no other options. With Proficiency 4 into forge guns, I only get a kill when the ADS is being really really dumb. Because they have way too much opportunity to get away. And it's ridiculous that I have to die several times a match to an ADS, and dropship pilots believe that only dying once every three to five matches is balanced. Do you realize that a pilot can not profit from losing a dropship and are forced to play infantry? I have 2 proto suits, 6 proto weapons, proto modules, and etc. Why do you assume that we never play infantry? Honestly, again, how are you incapable of destroying dropships with proto forge guns and proficiency? I don't even have proficiency and dropships are just pathetic. I cannot value your opinion when you seem so incapable of using a forge gun. I don't understand how you're dying to the ADS in a heavy suit, especially the sentinal, which I'm assuming is proto, and has a 25% reduction to splash damage. You literally have to standing out in the open for 20+ seconds for the pilot to kill you. Why would you do that? Do you stand in gun fire in the middle of the road when facing infantry? No. Use cover when facing any enemy, whether it's a vehicle or infantyrmen. Also, with how exposed pilots are in the air, nearly anything can kill them. I rarely bring out my ADS, due to how pathetic they are. The average pilot might get 10 kills a match, which isn't game breaking, and that's only if they're lucky. Too many people like you feel that you are entitled to explaining how to balance vehicles, when you in fact haven't a damn clue as to what you're talking about. How about you learn to fly and use nothing but an Incubus or Python for an entire month? I would love to do that, but there is no point in doing it. It's not fun. It's not profitable. It's not balanced. If you don't even have ANY skills into vehicles, can't even fly a dropship, what valid opinion do you have? To discuss such topics intelligently, we need experienced and knowledgable players. People who KNOW what's going on, not what they THINK is going on. The amount of ill informed bias of your posts is appauling. You know nothing about vehicles, so why are you trying to comment on balancing something that is completely foreign to you?

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2147	Posted - 2014.04.24 04:45:00 - [91] - Quote Temias, I'm quite good with a forge gun, but given how fast dropships can exit my max range, they only die when they're stupid and don't fly off fast enough. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 11	Posted - 2014.04.24 13:17:00 - [92] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: The reality is that the game won't be balanced as long as it takes a tank less time to kill me than for me to kill it, even if I spec specifically into the role of killing tanks. There shouldn't be anywhere vehicles "easily murder" other players. That's the thing. Vehicles don't have anywhere near the challenges that infantry face. The reason this topic has gotten to a more general sense is this: In a game where vehicles are already the most protected, difficult to destroy assets on the field, what in the world is someone doing asking for a nerf for the single vulnerability that vehicles actually have? Every dedicated vehicle user should take a month off and play infantry. Very few of them will survive the month. It's agonizingly painful being mowed down by vehicles in every other match and having almost nothing you can do about it. I can't fly a dropship even well enough to jihad it into an ADS, but if I could, I would. Because I have almost no other options. With Proficiency 4 into forge guns, I only get a kill when the ADS is being really really dumb. Because they have way too much opportunity to get away. And it's ridiculous that I have to die several times a match to an ADS, and dropship pilots believe that only dying once every three to five matches is balanced. My favorite thing to do when there is a tank is go somewhere the tank isn't. I run a scout so it's easier for me to leave the area without getting spotted, and I run to a different place. Then I help my team get out by hacking a CRU or a NULL cannon. Also, if you can hit an ADS and make it run, you still help your team, because they won't be under constant fire. Oh and correction, pilots have to survive for 3-5 matches to make back the same money they spend.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2149	Posted - 2014.04.24 13:46:00 - [93] - Quote Finn Colman wrote: My favorite thing to do when there is a tank is go somewhere the tank isn't. Sure. But the tank runs faster than you do, and sometimes there's nowhere to hide. It's crazy that I can spawn somewhere, and instadie to something I can't even damage. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 13	Posted - 2014.04.24 15:02:00 - [94] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Finn Colman wrote: My favorite thing to do when there is a tank is go somewhere the tank isn't. Sure. But the tank runs faster than you do, and sometimes there's nowhere to hide. It's crazy that I can spawn somewhere, and instadie to something I can't even damage. And so, I avoid the tank's attention... no need to run from someone who doesn't know you're there.
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 355	Posted - 2014.04.24 15:05:00 - [95] - Quote Finn Colman wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Finn Colman wrote: My favorite thing to do when there is a tank is go somewhere the tank isn't. Sure. But the tank runs faster than you do, and sometimes there's nowhere to hide. It's crazy that I can spawn somewhere, and instadie to something I can't even damage. And so, I avoid the tank's attention... no need to run from someone who doesn't know you're there. Finn your a new pilot right? MSG me in game. I will MSG you the next time I am on. We can squad up and go over a few training drills I do as an ADS pilot. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Finn Colman Immortal Guides 13	Posted - 2014.04.24 15:06:00 - [96] - Quote Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: Finn your a new pilot right? MSG me in game. I will MSG you the next time I am on. We can squad up and go over a few training drills I do as an ADS pilot. Alright, sounds good.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2057	Posted - 2014.04.24 22:26:00 - [97] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: KalOfTheRathi wrote: While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE. CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video. The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed. So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man. Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps. Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction. EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid. no but you can bump ships out of alignment preventing them from warping, while your buddies blow him up collision in eve has consequences as should collisions in dust. I still haven't heard an actual reason from the OPQQer why it needs removal. bump out of alignment doesn't equal complete and utter destruction. Try again. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Exionous True Pros Forever 113	Posted - 2014.04.24 22:56:00 - [98] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: TELL US WHY VEHICLE COLLISION SHOULD BE REMOVED... He did... it's called OP. You might want to go to your eyedoctor. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=156825&find=unread Sorry, what was that tankers?
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 312	Posted - 2014.04.25 01:04:00 - [99] - Quote theres this thing called physics that makes stuff blow up. and ramming other tanks is viable option especially if its a lolrailgun. *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 2897	Posted - 2014.04.25 01:49:00 - [100] - Quote Posting in a stealth "nerf jihad LAV's" topic. Head of public relations from The Rainbow Effect.

Seymor Krelborn L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2152	Posted - 2014.04.25 02:40:00 - [101] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: KalOfTheRathi wrote: While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE. CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video. The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed. So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man. Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps. Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction. EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid. no but you can bump ships out of alignment preventing them from warping, while your buddies blow him up collision in eve has consequences as should collisions in dust. I still haven't heard an actual reason from the OPQQer why it needs removal. bump out of alignment doesn't equal complete and utter destruction. Try again. when you cant warp and you have a bunch of ships now scraming, webbing and shooting you....yeah... that bump equaled complete and utter destruction....1/2 out of 10 for troll... you're slippin' this game makes me sad....
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1254	Posted - 2014.04.25 08:58:00 - [102] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: When you say "this is Dust" are you implying "this is not EVE so we don't need all the same things?" I don't like it, just to be clear. I think many of the tactics that are embraced in EVE are horrible and make me not want to be associated with EVE Online, its multitude of nerds playing point and click in Spaaace nor the founders of Gankers R Us aka CCP. As far as Dust goes it is worse, frankly. Because CCP/Shanghai has added some lame solution for nearly every release since 1.0, definitely since 1.4 onward. The first patches were just to get the game so it was marginally playable. They finally determined that Murder Taxi by Team members was a bad idea and fixed that. Fine. But the left the horrible OP LLAV as Murder Taxi by Red team members. Not fine. The fixed some of the very broken physics related to vehicle vs clone ramming, finally. Now where are we? Still playing a broken game, but is has Invisi-Scouts with shotguns now. Whee! And jihad Jeeps because there was no other reason to let REs be attached to anything but the ground. Except for blowing up tanks, but to stick them to the Jihad Jeeps was only done because CCP/Shanghai support Murder Taxis so they must exist. As evident by the fact that there has been some form of it every since 1.0 was dropped. What "This is Dust" means is you are hosed. Too bad. CCP/Shanghai only has one place to look to leadership and those guys releases video about HTFU while laughing when they cash the checks for those that just got ganked. Again (both checks and ganked). What would you expect to happen when the people that sign their checks has that mind set? Read my posts, this is a broken game. MMO that isn't. RPG that routinely rips character skill trees apart while not refunding SP or ISK even though the reason for spending either was just negated. FPS that has weapons that do not fire, target or can consistently hit targets. Wow, who would have thought that was a requirement? Not me that is for certain. But it must have been because Dust is still doing it nearly a year later! Now we get to game play. Which has been fundamentally broken since Uprising 1.0, it just hasn't gotten better because they don't care ... or they don't realize that any FPS that works can fire their weapon and hit a target. Not to mention that the next day one might hope that the ISK/SP/AUR/LP that was spent wasn't hot fixed at UTC 11:00. Welcome to Dust, somethings will never change. Those that do ... you will regret. And so it goes.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9740	Posted - 2014.04.25 09:53:00 - [103] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: when you cant warp and you have a bunch of ships now scraming, webbing and shooting you....yeah... that bump equaled complete and utter destruction....1/2 out of 10 for troll... you're slippin' Welp when I see an LAV bump me out of alignment for your AV to then follow up and destroy....then you might have a point....until then you are comparing two very different mechanics and twisting them to fit an agenda...... That's even worse of a troll. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 470	Posted - 2014.04.25 10:10:00 - [104] - Quote Jihad jeeps can be done away with as soon as all hardeners and reppers are done away with as well.
Kratek Heshan United Colonial Empire Army 27	Posted - 2014.04.25 11:11:00 - [105] - Quote its so epic when a cheap dropship bumb to a expensive assault dropship hahaha
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 63	Posted - 2014.04.25 15:20:00 - [106] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: Jihad jeeps can be done away with as soon as all hardeners and reppers are done away with as well. Or just tone down reppers and hardeners (which already have been, hardeners) and deal with them using proper AV, which isn't too difficult... The fact that you're still using Jihad Jeeps shows your inability to use AV, which I find to suffice without using such cheap tactics.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2161	Posted - 2014.04.25 16:18:00 - [107] - Quote Jihad jeeps are the sort of creative gameplay CCP wants. Learn to deal with them, they're here to stay. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 63	Posted - 2014.04.25 16:22:00 - [108] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Jihad jeeps are the sort of creative gameplay CCP wants. Learn to deal with them, they're here to stay. Actually, they weren't intended... don't put words into their mouths.
Hecarim Van Hohen 1198	Posted - 2014.04.25 17:00:00 - [109] - Quote Temias Mercurial wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Jihad jeeps are the sort of creative gameplay CCP wants. Learn to deal with them, they're here to stay. Actually, they weren't intended... don't put words into their mouths. And Soraya Xel didn't say they were intended, only that CCP wants creative gameplay "Now I am become Dev, the locker of threads." -CCP Logibro t¢«
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2161	Posted - 2014.04.25 17:10:00 - [110] - Quote Hecarim Van Hohen wrote: Temias Mercurial wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Jihad jeeps are the sort of creative gameplay CCP wants. Learn to deal with them, they're here to stay. Actually, they weren't intended... don't put words into their mouths. And Soraya Xel didn't say they were intended, only that CCP wants creative gameplay Exactly the point. CCP didn't intend jihad jeeps. But CCP did intend to create a game where players can invent their own tactics and strategies. And jihad jeeps embody the very soul of the game that CCP has told us they want to create. A sandbox. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate

Interplanetary Insanitarium 296	Posted - 2014.04.25 22:07:00 - [111] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Exactly the point. CCP didn't intend jihad jeeps. But CCP did intend to create a game where players can invent their own tactics and strategies. And jihad jeeps embody the very soul of the game that CCP has told us they want to create. A sandbox. Maybe they did though, intend to make jihad jeeps. If a bunch of kids (not saying you're all kids, but c'mon...) can think to use a fast vehicle as a murder device why couldn't CCP? If fists were food you'd be full right now.
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 63	Posted - 2014.04.25 22:11:00 - [112] - Quote Interplanetary Insanitarium wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Exactly the point. CCP didn't intend jihad jeeps. But CCP did intend to create a game where players can invent their own tactics and strategies. And jihad jeeps embody the very soul of the game that CCP has told us they want to create. A sandbox. Maybe they did though, intend to make jihad jeeps. If a bunch of kids (not saying you're all kids, but c'mon...) can think to use a fast vehicle as a murder device why couldn't CCP? They didn't intend murder taxi's, so I find it highly doubtful that Jihad Jeeps were at all intended. They did state that Jihad's were unintended anyway...
Interplanetary Insanitarium 296	Posted - 2014.04.25 22:18:00 - [113] - Quote Temias Mercurial wrote: Interplanetary Insanitarium wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Exactly the point. CCP didn't intend jihad jeeps. But CCP did intend to create a game where players can invent their own tactics and strategies. And jihad jeeps embody the very soul of the game that CCP has told us they want to create. A sandbox. Maybe they did though, intend to make jihad jeeps. If a bunch of kids (not saying you're all kids, but c'mon...) can think to use a fast vehicle as a murder device why couldn't CCP? They didn't intend murder taxi's, so I find it highly doubtful that Jihad Jeeps were at all intended. They did state that Jihad's were unintended anyway... Link? If fists were food you'd be full right now.
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 63	Posted - 2014.04.25 22:23:00 - [114] - Quote Interplanetary Insanitarium wrote: Temias Mercurial wrote: Interplanetary Insanitarium wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Exactly the point. CCP didn't intend jihad jeeps. But CCP did intend to create a game where players can invent their own tactics and strategies. And jihad jeeps embody the very soul of the game that CCP has told us they want to create. A sandbox. Maybe they did though, intend to make jihad jeeps. If a bunch of kids (not saying you're all kids, but c'mon...) can think to use a fast vehicle as a murder device why couldn't CCP? They didn't intend murder taxi's, so I find it highly doubtful that Jihad Jeeps were at all intended. They did state that Jihad's were unintended anyway... Link? That post was made months ago, and I don't remember which one it was in. Sorry, but I really don't feel like digging it out right now...
RINON114 B.S.A.A. General Tso's Alliance 595	Posted - 2014.04.26 07:26:00 - [115] - Quote Just remove friendly collision damage, job done.
Draco Cerberus BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 881	Posted - 2014.04.26 14:09:00 - [116] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Aero Yassavi wrote: When you say "this is Dust" are you implying "this is not EVE so we don't need all the same things?" I don't like it, just to be clear. I think many of the tactics that are embraced in EVE are horrible and make me not want to be associated with EVE Online, its multitude of nerds playing point and click in Spaaace nor the founders of Gankers R Us aka CCP. As far as Dust goes it is worse, frankly. Because CCP/Shanghai has added some lame solution for nearly every release since 1.0, definitely since 1.4 onward. The first patches were just to get the game so it was marginally playable. They finally determined that Murder Taxi by Team members was a bad idea and fixed that. Fine. But the left the horrible OP LLAV as Murder Taxi by Red team members. Not fine. The fixed some of the very broken physics related to vehicle vs clone ramming, finally. Now where are we? Still playing a broken game, but is has Invisi-Scouts with shotguns now. Whee! And jihad Jeeps because there was no other reason to let REs be attached to anything but the ground. Except for blowing up tanks, but to stick them to the Jihad Jeeps was only done because CCP/Shanghai support Murder Taxis so they must exist. As evident by the fact that there has been some form of it every since 1.0 was dropped. What "This is Dust" means is you are hosed. Too bad. CCP/Shanghai only has one place to look to leadership and those guys releases video about HTFU while laughing when they cash the checks for those that just got ganked. Again (both checks and ganked). What would you expect to happen when the people that sign their checks has that mind set? Read my posts, this is a broken game. MMO that isn't. RPG that routinely rips character skill trees apart while not refunding SP or ISK even though the reason for spending either was just negated. FPS that has weapons that do not fire, target or can consistently hit targets. Wow, who would have thought that was a requirement? Not me that is for certain. But it must have been because Dust is still doing it nearly a year later! Now we get to game play. Which has been fundamentally broken since Uprising 1.0, it just hasn't gotten better because they don't care ... or they don't realize that any FPS that works can fire their weapon and hit a target. Not to mention that the next day one might hope that the ISK/SP/AUR/LP that was spent wasn't hot fixed at UTC 11:00. Welcome to Dust, somethings will never change. Those that do ... you will regret. I blow up tanks, sometimes 3-4 in a match just by placing REs on tanks, glad to see they still stick to things other than the ground. Heck two days ago I blew up a Dropship the same way. Considering your displeasure with the FG not firing all the time would think this use of REs would please you. They are working as intended. Fanfest is sure to have some interesting changes thrown at us, this game is more about adapting to a changing battlefield than learning one way to do things. Get smart, get S-Mart and really come on, CCP may not care but I would bet money on them wanting success out of a product that they have spent years working on. A Brave New Eden Forge a new destiny
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1257	Posted - 2014.04.27 03:56:00 - [117] - Quote Draco Cerberus wrote: I blow up tanks, sometimes 3-4 in a match just by placing REs on tanks, glad to see they still stick to things other than the ground. Heck two days ago I blew up a Dropship the same way. Considering your displeasure with the FG not firing all the time would think this use of REs would please you. They are working as intended. Fanfest is sure to have some interesting changes thrown at us, this game is more about adapting to a changing battlefield than learning one way to do things. Get smart, get S-Mart and really come on, CCP may not care but I would bet money on them wanting success out of a product that they have spent years working on. I support the RE use. The Jihad Jeep thing is old. A fun toy for a 13 year old twit. Oh! It's CCP, that makes sense. Why you do believe I don't support them? I don't like getting blown up, either in a hallway or a vehicle, but that is what I am trying to do to the Reds. So I expect them to try something to counter my intent. My preferred method is a Rail Gun. Although I seriously wonder if the Massive Tanked Invisible-Scout was actually planned or was yet another surprise for CCP/Shanghai. The Jihad Jeep is merely the latest Murder Taxi from CCP/Shanghai. They have always had them. They finally change the game to fix the worst issue (friendly fire disabled in pub and vehicle damage not longer bypasses it) and every single time there is a Murder Taxi version the day of release. Physics changed so vehicles don't trap players on the front of tanks. Yada yada same old same old. And bingo! New Murder Taxi appears. Sure CCP would like to have Dust be a success. But I strongly suspect that World Of Darkness had that intent as well. Look how that turned out, ~$20M write off and ... a dead game. It took eight years is my understanding so Dust has a few left. I am glad you are looking forward to Fan Fest In the wonderful world of New Eden. I have yet to see the last promises delivered, nor have I seen bugs from throughout the releases of Uprising fixed, they have stopped fixing 1.8 bugs so that means everything else is Part Of The Game Now Sucka. Welcome to Dust, take a deep breath first. It gets kind of deep in here. the freaking Devs removed head shots from Rail Guns in 1.7! There were few things better than vaporizing a mud stomper with 195% effective Rail Gun Round. It was sweet. And so it goes.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

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.