DUST Search - Ey yo Rattati

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Ey yo Rattati

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4598	Posted - 2014.08.01 10:30:00 - [1] - Quote How you feel about making matches end faster when one team is holding all the points? Fixes redline drama, fixes bad players doing stupid things because there is no sense of motivation, kills a lot of the frustration of being in a losing fight forever... Is this the kinda thing you can even do in a hotfix?
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 15541	Posted - 2014.08.01 10:42:00 - [2] - Quote It's incredibly dull when you full cap in a skirmish and the other team just gives up, but it goes on for another 10 minutes... +1 You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5064	Posted - 2014.08.01 10:55:00 - [3] - Quote It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 354	Posted - 2014.08.01 11:25:00 - [4] - Quote While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them...
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 2672	Posted - 2014.08.01 11:26:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. Will this apply to PC as well? Tanker/Logi/Assault

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5065	Posted - 2014.08.01 11:31:00 - [6] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them... That's the thing, you can make up for lost time by actually going on the counter attack, claim all three and catch up quicker with this solution as well. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

anaboop Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 130	Posted - 2014.08.01 11:53:00 - [7] - Quote While it sounds nice, the losing team doesnt usually get a hold of all nulls late in the game, maybe use the armor 50% and armor critical as an indication of having null increased damage or hits for the losing side? Just an idea Fully sick Anaboop trading card
Haerr Legio DXIV 1146	Posted - 2014.08.01 12:25:00 - [8] - Quote Can you speed up skirmish matches by making the homepoint start out captured? It would help out a lot in PUB matches especially if you want to call in a derp and you get stuck waiting for fifty-eleven LAVs to be called in... 10 / 10 would read again.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1312	Posted - 2014.08.01 12:29:00 - [9] - Quote While the one-sided match is indeed dull. DUST already has a slippery slope style of gaming. This idea would only increase the slope exponentially, as it often takes time to rally, and time is already fairly short to do this in. I'd rather have a solid comeback system over increasing the slope of the system. Darth Jackal
Snake Sellors Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 220	Posted - 2014.08.01 12:37:00 - [10] - Quote Although I do like the all guns held bonus idea, I think that underdog bonuses should also come in, How about a damage boost to a null cannon that breaks an all captured boost? Or a timer that it can't. Be hacked back for? So if a team that's red lined gets a point back and the reds don't counter hack they recapture for a set time, giving the blues time to attack another point without defending the 1st point, it will allow for Momentum of attack on a break through. Thoughts?

headbust SVER True Blood Dark Taboo 110	Posted - 2014.08.01 12:40:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them... That's the thing, you can make up for lost time by actually going on the counter attack, claim all three and catch up quicker with this solution as well. do u play much lol usually when a team is down and out u might have 4 or 5 guys keep pushing but the rest give up and sit in the back a scout = once you turn your back on me you'll never be able to look back
Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 14	Posted - 2014.08.01 12:52:00 - [12] - Quote Imagine a team proto stomping in a qsync, against a team that isn't. I'm almost always qsnc'd and I can say any player barely hanging on will rage quit, they already do. Charlie gives me hope, this makes me think I shouldn't have ever given you money.
Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 15	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:00:00 - [13] - Quote If you wantbyo shorten matches just make null cannons more powerfull but this 50% if ypu hold all of them will just play to the vets advantage.
Freccia di Lybra Maphia Clan Corporation 186	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:07:00 - [14] - Quote it would simply make the match dies quicker. Even quicker than you imagine: losing team won't even try to attack as soon as they're redlined, so that that match ends Ei fu, xxwhitedevilxx former Co-CEO Maphia Clan Corporation / Unit Unicorn
Doc DDD TeamPlayers 267	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:17:00 - [15] - Quote I like this idea. .. would be nice if the same could be done for domination, like an increase in fire rate for every 5 minutes held, would make the race for first hack more desperate and reduce the amount of time a severely underpowered team gets redline camped.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4601	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:27:00 - [16] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them... Rewarding failure is a terrible gaming trend and it is has left a VERY negative impact on fighting games. I don't see it doing well for FPS games either. It would just drag the game out even longer and promote dumb activities like "seven snipers on a tower" and suchfourth. Anyhow I'm glad to see Rattati agrees with me on this one. I don't have a solution for Domination exactly, although I imagine there could possibly be a rate of fire bonus if the single terminal is held for longer than 5 minutes without a hack attempt or something along those lines.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 2567	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:33:00 - [17] - Quote Don't know if it needs a client update or not, but in domination matches in most of the maps, null cannons are placed under railing / tower / pitthole, i know it's an attack/ defend game mode, but this placement is frustrating because it allows camping and the only good strategy become camp even more, spam even more, zerg even more and i believe it's not funny at all. Another little thing that i believe you can hotfix are MCC missiles, there are already null cannons, why add them? Especially in domination, i believe that if one team manage to hack the null cannon at the last moment and keep it till the end it deserves the victory. PSN: ogamega "Dust is full of communists who despise people with enough isk to buy expensive items"
Grimmiers 644	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:41:00 - [18] - Quote I think another problem is players not even attempting to play to their potential by wearing militia suits as soon as things look rough. There should be a small insurance that covers a fraction of maybe up to 10 or so of the suits you've lost. So basically you're payout would increase if you lost more expensive fittings during your efforts to win. This money shouldn't be thrown in with the payout pool, but given directly to the player. There could also be a set amount of warpoints you have to earn per suit based on the meta level before you are covered by the insurance. There needs to be an incentive to win using better gear so the insurance plus a better team payout for winning would help both teams "proto stomp" each other more often. Edit: This would be cool if your corp and even npc corps could cover your losses automatically.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4601	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:42:00 - [19] - Quote If you guys think that this is a slippery slope you need to play Classic Battlefield. If all points are captured the team loses all of their tickets within about 30 seconds and the game ends. THAT was a slippery slope and nobody complained about it. This is not a hardcore slippery slope, punishing the noobie type change. It would offer them mercy of death. Any team that gets fully capped is probably going to lose the game anyway. I really believe it needs to happen, and the successful team shouldn't be punished by some comeback system that required no effort to take advantage of. What kind of message is that sending to the less skilled, lazy players anyway? That it's OK to lose objectives? There needs to be a point where defeat simply happens, and the torture stops. And there HAS to be some sense of urgency to rip bad players away from their team-screwing habits.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers 267	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:48:00 - [20] - Quote The mercy of the game ending swiftly is mercy enough.

iliel 0uter.Heaven 67	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:51:00 - [21] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them... Solution: reduce isk payouts to zero for a team which loses to a redline.
Grimmiers 644	Posted - 2014.08.01 13:52:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. This sounds good, but there's a problem with a lot of domination null cannon placements. Mostly the ones placed within the hill on manus peak. I feel like the map designer who place the null cannon didn't want the null cannon to get stuck in the changing socket structures so he placed in haphazardly on that spot because it was easier. The null cannon would be better off on H7 and what would be even better is for it to be on the blue team ground spawn, perhaps on the platform near that tower. (The ground spawn would be moved to E5) Checkmate! http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/64656/1/ManusPeak_domination.jpg
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1236	Posted - 2014.08.01 14:03:00 - [23] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them... That's the thing, you can make up for lost time by actually going on the counter attack, claim all three and catch up quicker with this solution as well. It sounds like what you are describing would just make the skirmish matches quicker but perhaps not more enjoyable. I think if you accelerated the Null Cannon RoF or damage as you take more OBJs this might very well lead you to a short spike in activity as the losing team (or at least the 5 or 6 good players on the losing team) tried to counter-attack, HOWEVER, i think you would get the point where you know you can win faster and you start playing very conservative, not want to lose suits, and not push the fight. This is a tough problem and I'm not necessarily opposed to capping bad matches but you have to be careful in mitigating longer boring fights you create even more short boring fights. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero Skype: jaysyn.larrisen Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2174	Posted - 2014.08.01 14:26:00 - [24] - Quote headbust wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them... That's the thing, you can make up for lost time by actually going on the counter attack, claim all three and catch up quicker with this solution as well. do u play much lol usually when a team is down and out u might have 4 or 5 guys keep pushing but the rest give up and sit in the back This is one symptom of the disease that is Passive in-match sp. The message that sp mechanic gives to players is twofold: Firstly it's a 'You don't really have to try to win' message and secondly it's a 'We hold your hand in this way because we know many of you players can't handle DUST in it's rawest, most primal state' message. Players intuit this even if they don't or can't verbalize it. Personally i don't want the in-match mechanics changed or buffs/nerfs applied to underdogs/winners, but do want to see a WP boost for all actions given to underdogs. Maybe base the boost on how many objectives the losing team manages to take back from the enemy, maybe bonus an underdog win. There would be many ways to write this mechanic, but the heart of it is you get paid in wp for fighting back from a probable/certain loss. PSN: RationalSpark
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1783	Posted - 2014.08.01 14:58:00 - [25] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. Can you please reduce ISK rewards for both winners and losers a bit for when this happens? To keep people from giving up too easily or just farming quick matches.
headbust SVER True Blood Dark Taboo 112	Posted - 2014.08.01 15:49:00 - [26] - Quote just gonna throw this out there but if we had a REAL matchmaking system we wouldn't need this cause matches would be fun and not 1 sided. i only get to play 2-3 competitive matches a day it seems. i had a real fun one against 1UP yesterday my team won by mcc but we had like 20 clones to their 40 but my squad didn't run any proto cant say the same for them though. a scout = once you turn your back on me you'll never be able to look back
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 684	Posted - 2014.08.01 16:38:00 - [27] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. Stop it Rattati, there's only so many sensible design suggestions you can push in such a short amount of time. We're in danger of the game actually becoming good if you keep going down this path.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 15548	Posted - 2014.08.01 17:06:00 - [28] - Quote anaboop wrote: While it sounds nice, the losing team doesnt usually get a hold of all nulls late in the game, maybe use the armor 50% and armor critical as an indication of having null increased damage or hits for the losing side? Just an idea If u cant make it happen from the nulls maybe make the mcc shoot more often or do more damage instead based on nulls captured If the losing team has lost all objectives at some point and then cannot reverse it so that they hold all objectives, they are worse than the winning team. Thus, they deserve to lose. Rewarding failure would be a stupid move. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 385	Posted - 2014.08.01 19:07:00 - [29] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Another little thing that i believe you can hotfix are MCC missiles, there are already null cannons, why add them? Especially in domination, i believe that if one team manage to hack the null cannon at the last moment and keep it till the end it deserves the victory. The MCC missiles are there as a safeguard. Would be way too easy to cap in a single match. Go PC/Qsync a match and hack everything but the objectives back and forth, until you have enough WP to cap. With no time limits you could just AFK overnight or until your PS3 melts. Plus it's hilarious watching a DS get taken out by one. Not so much if it's mine.
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 184	Posted - 2014.08.01 19:31:00 - [30] - Quote The posts by Headbust, Grimmier, and especially Hiniko, very much express my feelings too on this subject. Giving the losing team a friendly handicap/boost in the interests of adding artificial drama and artificial hope... when (umm, let's be honest) they are the losing team NOT because the other team was OP or proto-ringers all the time, but because the losing team had players in it who STILL haven't gotten the gist of co-op contribution that the Devs have always tried to promote first and foremost in their game... is kind of COUNTER to the game. Dust's hurtful lack of sympathy for players in the grind and the fitting-attempts has always been a shock for me, but at least it speaking HONESTLY to me: "Celesta, you will mostly succeed if you try to learn ever damn technique you can to work with blue-mercs in this match, and do your best to HELP THEM OUT, regardless whether they are buddies or strangers! ...If you haven't figured out yet that you're hurting team mates who you don't even know when you vacilate around the map using lost and random actions, or you just want to be stubborn and wing it on your own like you do in other shooters, then Celesta you deserve to see that work "Defeat" at the end of you matches (and deserve some of the criticism you find on this forum)". I mentioned this before, that I KNOW it's hard to learn how to practice REAL co-op activity in these games (because we console players honestly aren't given many games that REALLY require team-effort to survive them). But failing to learn the hard skills should not be rewarded with comeback mechanics. "Teams" burdened with too many lone-wolf players need to lose, and lose again, until... well, you know my same ole speech about Co-op. Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne... No story can have life without writers and publishers.

Jathniel G I A N T 1125	Posted - 2014.08.01 19:33:00 - [31] - Quote lol.... wow. Problem: Bad mechanics makes for lopsided matches that are broken and boring. Solution: Make matches shorter. (?) Problem: Dying economy. Weak currency. Solution: Reduce employee hours. (?) (Derp.) Hilarity. Fighting another team of skilled players is FUN, losing or not. The bad mechanics when doing that is what makes the losing side give up. The losing side is NOT losing motivation because of the winning side's skill. The losing side loses motivation when it's incapable of making a dent regardless of effort exerted. That's due to bad mechanics, not because the winning side is 1337. Example 1: Determined noob on losing team comes up with smart flanking maneuver. Bypasses winning team's defensive line, and approaches an objective. Determined noob gets drop on oblivious "vet" guarding objective. Noob lines up headshot and unloads into vet's skull. Vet jumps away, spins around and kills noob. Example 2: Determined noob on losing team comes up with smart flanking maneuver. Bypasses winning team's defensive line. Deploys uplink in good area, awaits backup to spawn, and THEN approaches an objective. GROUP of determined noobs get drop on oblivious "vet" guarding objective. Noobs rip vet to shreds with the combined power of their noob guns, and hack objective. Winning team of invincible vets returns to hacked objective and slaughter all noobs instantly, as noobs are incapable of throwing up a meaningful resistance to "vets". Noob comms are in an uproar with them complaining about how useless their guns are, how they don't know where they're getting shot from, and how "heavies are OP". Then one by one, each noob says "fk it", and decides to redline snipe. Winning team is now bored, and angry that they are getting pegged by redline snipers for the next 10 minutes; then run to forums and complain that the redline AND/OR snipers AND/OR "length of match" is the problem. Losing sides would put up a fight if the game wasn't broken, to begin with. Making the match shorter because the winners get bored doesn't change that. Set your goals high, and shoot for the moon; even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars.
aaaasdff ertgfdd 170	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:04:00 - [32] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: How you feel about making matches end faster when one team is holding all the points? Fixes redline drama, fixes bad players doing stupid things because there is no sense of motivation, kills a lot of the frustration of being in a losing fight forever... Is this the kinda thing you can even do in a hotfix? This would be a MERCY rule. Im all for it. INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC/ Peaceful Pirate No Dagger Just Swagger/ Num1 AHole in Dust/ Politically Incorrect MAN
Jathniel G I A N T 1125	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:20:00 - [33] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: How you feel about making matches end faster when one team is holding all the points? Fixes redline drama, fixes bad players doing stupid things because there is no sense of motivation, kills a lot of the frustration of being in a losing fight forever... Is this the kinda thing you can even do in a hotfix? .......... You know your game is in a bad spot when you got people making requests like this.... Set your goals high, and shoot for the moon; even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars.
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game Dark Taboo 130	Posted - 2014.08.01 22:00:00 - [34] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. if i could like that post 15 more times i would "uh guys" "i got to go back to the mcc those 10 ads's made me crap my dropsuit"
gauntlet44 LbowDeep Heaven84 Devils General Tso's Alliance 103	Posted - 2014.08.01 23:40:00 - [35] - Quote headbust wrote: just gonna throw this out there but if we had a REAL matchmaking system we wouldn't need this cause matches would be fun and not 1 sided. i only get to play 2-3 competitive matches a day it seems. i had a real fun one against 1UP yesterday my team won by mcc but we had like 20 clones to their 40 but my squad didn't run any proto cant say the same for them though. i would rather have better matchmaking than shorter games Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, make it uniquely your own........ Bruce Lee
aaaasdff ertgfdd 170	Posted - 2014.08.02 02:36:00 - [36] - Quote Jathniel wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: How you feel about making matches end faster when one team is holding all the points? Fixes redline drama, fixes bad players doing stupid things because there is no sense of motivation, kills a lot of the frustration of being in a losing fight forever... Is this the kinda thing you can even do in a hotfix? .......... You know your game is in a bad spot when you got people making requests like this.... Dude every video game I have ever played has one sided matches. No game has matchmaking perfected. INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC/ Peaceful Pirate No Dagger Just Swagger/ Num1 AHole in Dust/ Politically Incorrect MAN
OP FOTM Commando Perkone Caldari State 273	Posted - 2014.08.02 05:19:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. I'm starting to dislike most of what you say and do lately. This would turn a lot of close matches into losses. ESPECIALLY IN PLANETARY CONQUEST. Dust servers will be a ghost town on 09/09/14 Destiny kicks ass... Like Halo knocked up Mass Effect and gave birth
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 365	Posted - 2014.08.02 07:48:00 - [38] - Quote OP FOTM wrote: This would turn a lot of close matches into losses. This is my fear as well. In my experience, player motivation (and their actions) increases the more "close-call" the game is. They use higher tier gear and are generally more aggressive, generating really fun matches (win or lose). If there is a sense that the game is lost, motivation will decrease.... Players will switch to cheap gear to minimise their losses, switch to red-line sniping etc. I mean, how fun is it to join a game where the MCC is already at 30% health? How high is your motivation then? We need to give the underdog team a reason to stay in the fight. By making the loosing team "suffer" less, or penalising them with no ISK reward for a loss will achieve the complete opposite effect. Morale will be shattered, and people will leave game. I really like Vrain Matari's idea of increased WP for the underdog team. - What if hacking a Null canon gives an increased WP based on how many Null canons the enemy team have?
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4630	Posted - 2014.08.02 08:57:00 - [39] - Quote OP FOTM wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. I'm starting to dislike most of what you say and do lately. This would turn a lot of close matches into losses. ESPECIALLY IN PLANETARY CONQUEST. If you get fully capped it was probably not a close match. This change forces some players into a more defensive mindset so that never happens. The matches that are close will stay close.
Snake Sellors Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 234	Posted - 2014.08.02 12:45:00 - [40] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: [quote=OP FOTM] We need to give the underdog team a reason to stay in the fight. By making the loosing team "suffer" less, or penalising them with no ISK reward for a loss will achieve the complete opposite effect. Morale will be shattered, and people will leave game. I really like Vrain Matari's idea of increased WP for the underdog team. - What if hacking a Null canon gives an increased WP based on how many Null canons the enemy team have? I really like this idea too, as you say we need to give the losing side a reason to keep fighting back or there will be no close battles. blueberries will leave the battles as soon as they are pushed back. and if you take away the isk/sp rewards or seriously reduce them they will start to leave battles that are even difficult. if you encourage people to fight back though you will start to see more close battles. my earlier idea of a timer on a rehack will allow the handful of people still fighting to be able to make enough of a difference to encourage others back to the fight.

Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 16	Posted - 2014.08.02 12:50:00 - [41] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: OP FOTM wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. I'm starting to dislike most of what you say and do lately. This would turn a lot of close matches into losses. ESPECIALLY IN PLANETARY CONQUEST. If you get fully capped it was probably not a close match. This change forces some players into a more defensive mindset so that never happens. The matches that are close will stay close. How do you figure that an even match now would stay one with this implemented? I can recall some of the best matches going against era, cap ac, and well most corps in our alliance where we lost every point and turned it around when we regrouped. Long gruelling matches that were fun as **** that would be a waste of isk just because a team deployed betterand smoother because I don't like my sqd to pub stomp and we don't always check the bored. The way it is now is 100% fair so I say again, imcrease null cannon damage to shorten games.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers 269	Posted - 2014.08.02 13:21:00 - [42] - Quote Demandred Moores wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: OP FOTM wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. I'm starting to dislike most of what you say and do lately. This would turn a lot of close matches into losses. ESPECIALLY IN PLANETARY CONQUEST. If you get fully capped it was probably not a close match. This change forces some players into a more defensive mindset so that never happens. The matches that are close will stay close. How do you figure that an even match now would stay one with this implemented? I can recall some of the best matches going against era, cap ac, and well most corps in our alliance where we lost every point and turned it around when we regrouped. Long gruelling matches that were fun as **** that would be a waste of isk just because a team deployed betterand smoother because I don't like my sqd to pub stomp and we don't always check the bored. The way it is now is 100% fair so I say again, imcrease null cannon damage to shorten games. If you are capable of flipping the points you will still be able to, you will have to hold the point for the same period of time as the other team to be even on shields and armor, just like now.... the key difference is if you DONT flip any points the game will end sooner.. Ie: Team A caps all points immediately and holds all for 5 min, with bonus it's as though 7.5 minutes pass. Team B regroups and flips all points at the same time, holds for 5, now they are even on shields and armor. if you are getting 5 capped at the start of a match and can't hack one point for over 5 minutes then your team was going to drown regardless of null canon speed.
Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 16	Posted - 2014.08.02 13:31:00 - [43] - Quote Let the pub stomping begin, time to pad that w/l.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4630	Posted - 2014.08.02 14:45:00 - [44] - Quote I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear. Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up.
Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 16	Posted - 2014.08.02 15:43:00 - [45] - Quote I've got 35m sp and constant 3 or 5-1 kd weekly I play in pc almost daily I'm far from inexperienced and would probably dominate with this Iimplemented. All I'm saying is that this is in no way friendly to those with less experience and sp. It caters only to strong corps with active numbers.
Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.08.02 15:58:00 - [46] - Quote An opposing view is in no way negative, someone has to speak up for the poor blueberries that are on the verge of extinctio. Make a new account and join an upcoming corp and tell me if you think this would help. Maybe you've been stomping in fa a little too long. The ways of the noob are long forgotten in this alliance we just stomp them into never playing again.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 367	Posted - 2014.08.02 16:34:00 - [47] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear. Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. I think it's more a case of being cautious of an idea which looks good on paper, but will probably backfire quite badly if implemented solo (without any further mechanics to encourage people to get into the fight). It will rather give a reason to give up even earlier.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 6855	Posted - 2014.08.02 16:40:00 - [48] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear. Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. Plebs rarely ever know what they are talking about or know what's good for them. This is why a pure Democracy cannot work. see you space cowboy...
Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.08.02 16:54:00 - [49] - Quote Pubs were never meant for vets anyways give us a reason to play factional and let blieberries play pub. Solves issue.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 367	Posted - 2014.08.02 17:04:00 - [50] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: That's the thing, you can make up for lost time by actually going on the counter attack, claim all three and catch up quicker with this solution as well. That's true, but the number of times I have seen both teams hold all the points in one game is extremely rare. Best case one team hold all the points for a time, then the opposition manage to capture back the majority (but not all). Those games were a lot of fun and very close... But if the proposed mechanics would have been implemented in those games, the additional advantage given to the first team would make it next to impossible to come back, and I am afraid people would have given up earlier. It would also be harder to win by clone-out, since you will have less time to kill off all enemy clones if the enemy team hold all points. Look, I am not against the idea per se, there just need to be greater incentive (and opportunity) to stay in the fight. Then we will see more close fights.

Demandred Moores Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.08.02 17:05:00 - [51] - Quote Pubs were never meant for vets anyways give us a reason to play factional and let blieberries play pub. Solves issue.
Patrick57 Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 7968	Posted - 2014.08.02 17:07:00 - [52] - Quote The only problem I could see this becoming is an issue with not being able to come back from a redline. Especially in PC. Yesterday we played a match where we were five capped because we got into the match late. But we managed to turn the whole game around and five cap them, and win. How would there be any epic comebacks like this if the matches end quicker? ;_; King Thunderbolt is my number one fan.
scisco Teebag Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.08.02 17:55:00 - [53] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: The only problem I could see this becoming is an issue with not being able to come back from a redline. Especially in PC. Yesterday we played a match where we were five capped because we got into the match late. But we managed to turn the whole game around and five cap them, and win. How would there be any epic comebacks like this if the matches end quicker? ;_; Thank you Patrick! I think synergy idea is ridiculous maybe a small spool up time on the fire rate to increase fire rate on single null Canon's the longer it's held increasing its launch rate slightly, I also like how it is now but if it was more than a constructive question asking about the grouped rof increase I feel ccp should give me my money back so I can buy a game that makes sense.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game Dark Taboo 243	Posted - 2014.08.02 18:05:00 - [54] - Quote A decent bonus for the losing side would be lowered spawn time on uplinks... Better chance of getting a large number of the team out of the redzone... Or maybe an option to teleport to uplinks from somewhere in the redzone so people don't have to die and waste clones before becoming useful.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4631	Posted - 2014.08.02 20:29:00 - [55] - Quote Demandred Moores wrote: I've got 35m sp and constant 3 or 5-1 kd weekly I play in pc almost daily I'm far from inexperienced and would probably dominate with this Iimplemented. All I'm saying is that this is in no way friendly to those with less experience and sp. It caters only to strong corps with active numbers. Don't be such a bleeding heart. Mercy of death is important. Patrick57 wrote: The only problem I could see this becoming is an issue with not being able to come back from a redline. Especially in PC. Yesterday we played a match where we were five capped because we got into the match late. But we managed to turn the whole game around and five cap them, and win. How would there be any epic comebacks like this if the matches end quicker? ;_; Get into the match on time? Comn, let's look at this objectively. A gameplay mechanic's status should not be dependent upon one team which cannot be bothered or organized enough to get into the match when they had a full 24 hours to prepare.
Patrick57 Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 7972	Posted - 2014.08.02 20:35:00 - [56] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Demandred Moores wrote: I've got 35m sp and constant 3 or 5-1 kd weekly I play in pc almost daily I'm far from inexperienced and would probably dominate with this Iimplemented. All I'm saying is that this is in no way friendly to those with less experience and sp. It caters only to strong corps with active numbers. Don't be such a bleeding heart. Mercy of death is important. Patrick57 wrote: The only problem I could see this becoming is an issue with not being able to come back from a redline. Especially in PC. Yesterday we played a match where we were five capped because we got into the match late. But we managed to turn the whole game around and five cap them, and win. How would there be any epic comebacks like this if the matches end quicker? ;_; Get into the match on time? Comn, let's look at this objectively. A gameplay mechanic's status should not be dependent upon one team which cannot be bothered or organized enough to get into the match when they had a full 24 hours to prepare. We were on very short notice. We weren't able to get a team together until it already started (we were ringing ). I guess that time it was human error (or stupidity), but I still don't see people being able to come back from being redlined, even if they are putting in the effort and trying. :\ King Thunderbolt is my number one fan.
Jathniel G I A N T 1128	Posted - 2014.08.02 22:33:00 - [57] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: A decent bonus for the losing side would be lowered spawn time on uplinks... Better chance of getting a large number of the team out of the redzone... Or maybe an option to teleport to uplinks from somewhere in the redzone so people don't have to die and waste clones before becoming useful. What this guy said. A buff to the losing team's spawn timers, to keep them in the fight. You want to win quickly? Clone them out. Set your goals high, and shoot for the moon; even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 240	Posted - 2014.08.02 23:04:00 - [58] - Quote I'm a NO on this one and agree with the previous posters who see this more as rewarding pubstomp crews than grantinf a "merciful" end to redlined scrubs. I do think changing some other parameters tho could glean similiar results. Others have posted ideas in other threads about "fixing" the redlines so players HAVE to come out and I think the better answer is along those lines. ALL clones being forced into the battlefield means they can't afk or waste time. And are there to be cloned our faster, if their enemy is that much more superior. Meanwhile, since the 4-7 do-nothings or redline snipers can't hide in an inaccessible zone anymore maybe they'll HTFU and get to work. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
DJINN Jecture BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 165	Posted - 2014.08.03 06:36:00 - [59] - Quote Just because I want to throw this out there, rather than synergy, how about a command center firing post for those skilled in say something like Null Cannon Operation (like Starbase Defense Management) but only allow the command center to be used when all 3/4/5 points are captured allowing for greater damage on the opposing MCC and a way to flip the null cannons all over by capturing said command post from the enemy? How long til this hits PC?
Brokerib Lone Wolves Club 2094	Posted - 2014.08.03 10:22:00 - [60] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. Would it be possible to institute instant win conditions, in situations where it is impossible for the losing side to recover? For example. In Skirmish, as MCC's do minimal amounts of damage to each other regardless of whether any null canons are held, one team may be in a position where, even if the enemy were to take all null canons and hold them for the rest of the match, they would still win. Would also need to consider clone count (leading side has 2x clones perhaps?), but might tidy up a couple of the completely hopeless matches. Or possibly in Ambush where the leading side has 10x more clones than the trailing side? Knowledge is power

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4120	Posted - 2014.08.03 10:24:00 - [61] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. Holy ** this will be AMAZING! I'd warn that along with this you increase the payouts (SP and ISK) to the winning side. I worry that something like this will just make AFK go out of control. As they will be inclined to do nothing and cap out faster. Level 4 Forum Warrior** Very, very bitter vet PSN: wbrom42
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4120	Posted - 2014.08.03 10:33:00 - [62] - Quote I'd like to see people who continuously get 100 WP or less be limited to ambush only until they earn X amount of WP. It's time to get creative in thinking of ways to get people playing the game. I'm tired of the excuses that they are new. I jump in random squads all the time, they are just screwing around. They don't care because they get ISK and SP regardless. I think current ISK payouts for losers are fine, but winners should get paid handsomely. I think salvage should increase as well. We've tried the "Eve is hard" mantra, let's try here's a lot of stuff for playing hard and winning mantra. Level 4 Forum Warrior Very, very bitter vet PSN: wbrom42
Liftrasir Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2014.08.03 11:15:00 - [63] - Quote I think the null-cannons should have increase ROF for every missile they launch and reset back to 0% bonus when hacked. That way points become more valuable the longer they have been held by a team.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4634	Posted - 2014.08.03 11:43:00 - [64] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear. Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. I think it's more a case of being cautious of an idea which looks good on paper, but will probably backfire quite badly if implemented solo (without any further mechanics to encourage people to get into the fight). It will rather give a reason to give up even earlier. Battlefield has been out for a decade. Pretty sure it hasn't backfired yet. Again, the people asking for this to not happen aren't being cautious, they are straight-up suggesting it shouldn't happen and their only reason is inexperience with which game design elements work and don't work. People who don't know what the hell they are talking about really shouldn't offer an opinion, alas....
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 374	Posted - 2014.08.03 13:02:00 - [65] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear. Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. I think it's more a case of being cautious of an idea which looks good on paper, but will probably backfire quite badly if implemented solo (without any further mechanics to encourage people to get into the fight). It will rather give a reason to give up even earlier. Battlefield has been out for a decade. Pretty sure it hasn't backfired yet. Again, the people asking for this to not happen aren't being cautious, they are straight-up suggesting it shouldn't happen and their only reason is inexperience with which game design elements work and don't work. People who don't know what the hell they are talking about really shouldn't offer an opinion, alas.... Sorry, but Battlefield and Dust 514 are not the same game... quite far from it. Just because it works fine in one game does not automatically mean it works perfectly in all other FPS. And everybody have a right to their opinion... I respect yours even if I don't agree with you. It's just the tone of superiority in your posts which I find offensive.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4634	Posted - 2014.08.03 13:38:00 - [66] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear. Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. I think it's more a case of being cautious of an idea which looks good on paper, but will probably backfire quite badly if implemented solo (without any further mechanics to encourage people to get into the fight). It will rather give a reason to give up even earlier. Battlefield has been out for a decade. Pretty sure it hasn't backfired yet. Again, the people asking for this to not happen aren't being cautious, they are straight-up suggesting it shouldn't happen and their only reason is inexperience with which game design elements work and don't work. People who don't know what the hell they are talking about really shouldn't offer an opinion, alas.... Sorry, but Battlefield and Dust 514 are not the same game... quite far from it. Just because it works fine in one game does not automatically mean it works perfectly in all other FPS. And everybody have a right to their opinion... I respect yours even if I don't agree with you. It's just the tone of superiority in your posts which I find offensive. Battlefield and Skirmish are almost exactly the same game. Skirmish 2.0 was modeled after Battlefield with MCC HP replacing the ticket system and clones staying independent instead of sharing the same HP pool. This change was put into place because someone at CCP began to worry their game was too different than what was already proven to be successful on the market. This is the direct consequence of a game being developed from a business standpoint first and actual game second. The only other difference is that there is a point that has to be hacked, instead of having someone simply stand in an area and have the place turn over automatically. Finally, no. You are not entitled to your opinion. Not publicly. That's some elementary school crap they told you when you were a kid so you would feel warm and fuzzy inside. What you are entitled to is an EDUCATED opinion. If your opinion is not educated than it is irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. You keep that ignorant nonsense to yourself because it pollutes any intelligent discussion actually going on. As you don't even understand the major similarities between Battlefield and Skirmish your opinion is clearly not educated and I would ask you stop talking.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 374	Posted - 2014.08.03 15:38:00 - [67] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Battlefield and Skirmish are almost exactly the same game. Skirmish 2.0 was modeled after Battlefield with MCC HP replacing the ticket system and clones staying independent instead of sharing the same HP pool. This change was put into place because someone at CCP began to worry their game was too different than what was already proven to be successful on the market. This is the direct consequence of a game being developed from a business standpoint first and actual game second. The only other difference is that there is a point that has to be hacked, instead of having someone simply stand in an area and have the place turn over automatically. Finally, no. You are not entitled to your opinion. Not publicly. That's some elementary school crap they told you when you were a kid so you would feel warm and fuzzy inside. What you are entitled to is an EDUCATED opinion. If your opinion is not educated than it is irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. You keep that ignorant nonsense to yourself because it pollutes any intelligent discussion actually going on. As you don't even understand the major similarities between Battlefield and Skirmish your opinion is clearly not educated and I would ask you stop talking. Lol I never said anything about Skirmish. You are obviously the one mixing up Games with Game Modes... In Battlefield: - Can you outfit your avatar to the same complexity as in Dust? - Does it cost any form of in-game currency doing so? - Does said gear come in different tiers, with more powerful tiers costing exponentially more? - Will you loose said gear if you are killed? These (among other) are the factors that set Dust 514 apart from other FPS including Battlefield, even if (and I agree) it's game modes are similar. These are also the reasons players start to play very defensively (I.e giving up) in case they don't see any possible way to win. With your (and Rattati's) proposal I fear that players will give up sooner rather than later, which is why I don't think it is a good idea (on its own). Combined with other game mechanics which encourage teams to make a comeback, perhaps... Anyway, I have said my peace on the topic and won't bother replying any further. Feel free to continue your intelligent discussion
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4635	Posted - 2014.08.04 13:14:00 - [68] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Battlefield and Skirmish are almost exactly the same game. Skirmish 2.0 was modeled after Battlefield with MCC HP replacing the ticket system and clones staying independent instead of sharing the same HP pool. This change was put into place because someone at CCP began to worry their game was too different than what was already proven to be successful on the market. This is the direct consequence of a game being developed from a business standpoint first and actual game second. The only other difference is that there is a point that has to be hacked, instead of having someone simply stand in an area and have the place turn over automatically. Finally, no. You are not entitled to your opinion. Not publicly. That's some elementary school crap they told you when you were a kid so you would feel warm and fuzzy inside. What you are entitled to is an EDUCATED opinion. If your opinion is not educated than it is irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. You keep that ignorant nonsense to yourself because it pollutes any intelligent discussion actually going on. As you don't even understand the major similarities between Battlefield and Skirmish your opinion is clearly not educated and I would ask you stop talking. Lol I never said anything about Skirmish. You are obviously the one mixing up Games with Game Modes... In Battlefield: - Can you outfit your avatar to the same complexity as in Dust? - Does it cost any form of in-game currency doing so? - Does said gear come in different tiers, with more powerful tiers costing exponentially more? - Will you loose said gear if you are killed? These (among other) are the factors that set Dust 514 apart from other FPS including Battlefield, even if (and I agree) it's game modes are similar. These are also the reasons players start to play very defensively (I.e giving up) in case they don't see any possible way to win. With your (and Rattati's) proposal I fear that players will give up sooner rather than later, which is why I don't think it is a good idea (on its own). Combined with other game mechanics which encourage teams to make a comeback, perhaps... Anyway, I have said my peace on the topic and won't bother replying any further. Feel free to continue your intelligent discussion Skirmish is Dust. Everything else is a broken game mode derived from bits and pieces of skirmish in an attempt to please sub-audiences. Your argument (whatever it is) is invalid.
Maximus Stryker Who Are Those Guys 1016	Posted - 2014.08.04 17:56:00 - [69] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish. Please do this. Best Idea For Legion


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.