DUST Search - [Feedback] A Case for Team Deploy

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Feedback] A Case for Team Deploy

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1904	Posted - 2014.09.30 06:29:00 - [1] - Quote In the FPS world there are solo FPS (Quake, Doom, Bioshock...) and team based FPS (Battlefield, Battlefront, Planetside, Mag...). Of these two categories of FPS dust fits in more with the team based group than the solo but it is noticibly missing a major element. Team deploy. Team deploy is a feature that many have been asking for in Dust since its infancy. We got hints of it with corp-battles (the precursor to planetary conquest) but have yet to see a deploy option. Lets take a second and think about why a team deploy option would be a good thing for Dust: Team deployment would allow for increased coordination between players, raising the level of game play, and making the game more challenging/fun for everyone Current cue sync mechanics are cumbersome often taking 5-10 minutes to cue. An actual team deploy option would decrease wait time between matches. Corps would have a chance to play against other corps outside of PC. This would be hugely instructional to small corps who lack the income/training to enter PC right away. Would remove the frustration many players feel towards "blueberries" since all players on a side would be corp mates. Removes the annoyance of a single squad not getting on the same team in a cue sync. I realize that there are many solo-players out there who feel like team deploy would have an adverse affect upon them. Fair enough. No one wants a full proto team swooping into pubs and stomping the poop out of randoms. That isn't what this is about. To counter this clear problem I would additionally propose that team deploy be restricted to FW matches. These matches are supposed to be more cutthroat and targeted towards experienced players. There are already many corps who cue sync into faction warfare so this would simply make that cue syncing easier. Players who cue into faction warfare matches would come to expect more challenging battles and react by either choosing to play pubs, deploying their own corp into FW, coordinating more with their teammates, or simply spending more time in Pub matches. Really team deploy is a feature that should have been implemented a long time ago CCP and there is no excuse for not having it. Lets make it happen already. Now with more evil.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3844	Posted - 2014.09.30 07:26:00 - [2] - Quote I sense this theme with Molon Labe threads... I am fine with Team Deploy as long as it is teams versus teams. A full team should never be allowed to match against a matchmaking-assembled team. Even in FW, a team deploy versus even highly skilled players will usually be a pubstomp. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3297	Posted - 2014.09.30 08:00:00 - [3] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I sense this theme with Molon Labe threads... I am fine with Team Deploy as long as it is teams versus teams. A full team should never be allowed to match against a matchmaking-assembled team. Even in FW, a team deploy versus even highly skilled players will usually be a pubstomp. This is where I will partially disagree with you. If you team deploy you should be held in the queue until another team deploys or tou have at least two squads lined up. In faction warfare, however, enemy teams should be priority... but you pays your money and takes your chances. Facwar should be where the carebear protections GO AWAY.
Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1906	Posted - 2014.09.30 08:13:00 - [4] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I sense this theme with Molon Labe threads... Stop insinuating that something nefarious is going on. It just makes you look ridiculous. Soraya Xel wrote: I am fine with Team Deploy as long as it is teams versus teams. A full team should never be allowed to match against a matchmaking-assembled team. Even in FW, a team deploy versus even highly skilled players will usually be a pubstomp. Have you actually ever played a game where there is team deployment? If you had you would know that a full team does not always win against a skilled group of randomly assembled players. Give it a try. While you may have concerns about the synced squad stomping constantly it is entirely unfounded. Wait a minute. Earlier, in a different thread you said you thought FW should be more hardcore. Soraya Xel wrote: PC is inherently unfixable, IMHO. I'd definitely like to see FacWar play out as a much more hardcore and much more profitable institution though. NPE in general, is a very high priority, and easing the ability to collaborate with others is important. By protecting solo players in FW you are making saying it should be just another carebare mode. Make up your mind. Do you want FW to be a place for serious competition or do you think it should be a place where we all hug each other until the match ends. Team deploy is the easiest way to increase the competitive nature of FW and give all corps a place to practice for PC regardless of their size, wealth, or skill. Now with more evil.
Vulpes Dolosus molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 2191	Posted - 2014.09.30 11:40:00 - [5] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I sense this theme with Molon Labe threads... What? Well-structured arguments about features and issues that players actually care about? A strong desire for more team-based content and features? I do agree with your points though. Team deployed teams should primarily be matched with either other team or high Mu squads (or however that works). Dust was real! I was there! My current background
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3306	Posted - 2014.09.30 11:48:00 - [6] - Quote There should be no handholding in faction war. The more brutally hard that gamemode is, the more potentially profitable it might become to run as battlefield of choice for most veteran (post 8 mil players) New players should experiment but without a squad facwr should be a rather hellish prospect for all but the most vicious and/or insane solo players. Solo in pubs, but in facwar the rule should be "you pays your money and takes your chances."
rpastry The Rainbow Effect 243	Posted - 2014.09.30 11:48:00 - [7] - Quote just bring back corp matches [Removed ASCII Art - CCP Logibro]
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3858	Posted - 2014.09.30 14:16:00 - [8] - Quote I really want to see truly asymmetrical warfare, where people can use numbers to overwhelm a superior force or skill to overwhelm a larger force or what have you. But as long as you're forcing teams to be a certain size, and for one or both sides of the game to be assembled by a matchmaking system, I think you have to try for balance. And a sixteen-man team on voice comms should always beat a squad or two plus solo randoms. That isn't a good play experience for anyone. A pubstomp isn't "competitive", nor is it "hardcore". It's easymode for the winning team, and there's no "competitive" in "no chance of winning". CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Thor Odinson42 molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 4802	Posted - 2014.09.30 14:29:00 - [9] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I really want to see truly asymmetrical warfare, where people can use numbers to overwhelm a superior force or skill to overwhelm a larger force or what have you. But as long as you're forcing teams to be a certain size, and for one or both sides of the game to be assembled by a matchmaking system, I think you have to try for balance. And a sixteen-man team on voice comms should always beat a squad or two plus solo randoms. That isn't a good play experience for anyone. A pubstomp isn't "competitive", nor is it "hardcore". It's easymode for the winning team, and there's no "competitive" in "no chance of winning". So is your vision of Dust 16 v 16 solo play with no voice communication? Is this what you want to be known for? I don't think anyone in their right mind wants to team deploy into a public skirmish. You'll have to link those posts or quote them here if you will. You are the leader of dead alliance. Perhaps not that many share your vision of derp Dust. Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3858	Posted - 2014.09.30 14:42:00 - [10] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: So is your vision of Dust 16 v 16 solo play with no voice communication? Is this what you want to be known for? This is a logical fallacy called "strawman". It's where you intentionally misrepresent someone's position to make it easier to criticize. I am strongly in favor of players being able to play the game the way they want to. Whether that be as a squad, solo, casual, or hardcore player. Whether it's scamming or stealing, loyal to the cause or following whoever offers the highest paycheck, whatever. Forcing people to play "the Thor Odinson way" is not a game change I support. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.

Thor Odinson42 molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 4802	Posted - 2014.09.30 14:50:00 - [11] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: So is your vision of Dust 16 v 16 solo play with no voice communication? Is this what you want to be known for? This is a logical fallacy called "strawman". It's where you intentionally misrepresent someone's position to make it easier to criticize. I am strongly in favor of players being able to play the game the way they want to. Whether that be as a squad, solo, casual, or hardcore player. Whether it's scamming or stealing, loyal to the cause or following whoever offers the highest paycheck, whatever. Forcing people to play "the Thor Odinson way" is not a game change I support. Lol @ strawman, pot meet kettle. But you seek a MMO type sandbox within the confines of a 16 v 16 game with objectives that are clearly defined. There is no free roam mode that you seek. You should push for that. Also I don't see how having a team deploy mode that can be partaken in without the time limitations put forth by PC is changing the game. It's adding content that a LOT of people have been calling for. Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3858	Posted - 2014.09.30 14:58:00 - [12] - Quote Would love a free roam mode, but I think something like that for DUST 514 as opposed to Legion is probably a dream that will never come true. The ability to just have as many people as you want land at a facility would be amazing. (And would make planetary conquest a workable mechanic instead of a joke.) I never said I'm against a team deploy mode that can be partaken at any time. Notice my first post in the thread is in support of it. But I think team deploy teams should be fighting other team deploy teams in matchmaking. Maybe if a team deploys a couple short, the matchmaking could assemble randoms to fill out the ranks, but a full team deployment should, at bare minimum, be matched against a team deploy that is also larger than a single squad. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Thor Odinson42 molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 4802	Posted - 2014.09.30 15:01:00 - [13] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Would love a free roam mode, but I think something like that for DUST 514 as opposed to Legion is probably a dream that will never come true. The ability to just have as many people as you want land at a facility would be amazing. (And would make planetary conquest a workable mechanic instead of a joke.) I never said I'm against a team deploy mode that can be partaken at any time. Notice my first post in the thread is in support of it. But I think team deploy teams should be fighting other team deploy teams in matchmaking. Maybe if a team deploys a couple short, the matchmaking could assemble randoms to fill out the ranks, but a full team deployment should, at bare minimum, be matched against a team deploy that is also larger than a single squad. I didn't think you had it in you. Slow clap. Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1909	Posted - 2014.09.30 15:47:00 - [14] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: A pubstomp isn't "competitive", nor is it "hardcore". It's easymode for the winning team, and there's no "competitive" in "no chance of winning". You'll notice that in the OP what I proposed is not something that will lead to FW stomping at all. In fact, I have already disputed your claim that it will lead to more one sided matches than we currently experience. You have totally failed to share any viable criticism of any of my points. Even pushing that portion of my argument aside you seem to be ignoring the fact that I am calling for this to only happen in FW and not public matches at all. Pubs should remain a relatively safe place for new players and solo players alike where they don't have to worry about full teams that are actually coordinated. In FW though, as the goon said, the gloves should come off. FW is located in low sec, where anything goes. If an EvE corp wants to bring in a fleet of stealth bombers to camp a gate so be it. In dust the game should play out the same way, where players and corps are fully unrestricted in FW matches. I doesn't matter if teams are restricted in size to 16 or 1600 there should be a team deploy mode that allows organized groups of mercs to join FW matches all together. Eve players who choose to enter low sec space on their own do so at their own risk, the same should be said for Dust. Your call to have team deploy work only against other teams is totally out of line with the wild west nature of low sec and faction warfare space. Not only does such a concept deny players and corps their sandbox but it puts un-needed restrictions on a part of the game that is intended to have none. Now with more evil.
Thor Odinson42 molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 4806	Posted - 2014.09.30 15:53:00 - [15] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: A pubstomp isn't "competitive", nor is it "hardcore". It's easymode for the winning team, and there's no "competitive" in "no chance of winning". You'll notice that in the OP what I proposed is not something that will lead to FW stomping at all. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I am calling for this to only happen in FW and not public matches at all. Pubs should remain a relatively safe place for new players and solo players alike where they don't have to worry about full teams that are actually coordinated. In FW though, as the goon said, the gloves should come off. FW is located in low sec, where anything goes. If an EvE corp wants to bring in a fleet of stealth bombers to camp a gate so be it. In dust the game should play out the same way, where players and corps are fully unrestricted in FW matches. I doesn't matter if teams are restricted in size to 16 or 1600 there should be a team deploy mode that allows organized groups of mercs to join FW matches all together. Eve players who choose to enter low sec space on their own do so at their own risk, the same should be said for Dust. Your call to have team deploy work only against other teams is totally out of line with the wild west nature of low sec and faction warfare space. Not only does such a concept deny players and corps their sandbox but it puts un-needed restrictions on a part of the game that is intended to have none. Just another area that he fails to see the potential benefit to newer players. Give the more experienced players something shinier to do and it will allow more room for new and/or casual players in pubs. Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3861	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:10:00 - [16] - Quote Being in FacWar doesn't make it any less likely to be a pubstomp. If there is no attempt at balance, then there's no challenging gameplay for anyone. Just a bad experience for both teams. The main "restriction" that's at fault, is the 16 player team limit. If it was possible to pit an organized team against perhaps a slightly larger number of randoms to compensate, it might be possible to balance. The reason EVE balance isn't relevant here, is because in EVE you can swarm/outnumber an opponent, but DUST makes this impossible. Trying to make the EVE sov system work in DUST (planetary conquest) largely failed for the same reason. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3861	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:12:00 - [17] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Just another area that he fails to see the potential benefit to newer players. Give the more experienced players something shinier to do and it will allow more room for new and/or casual players in pubs. Strongly wishing to encourage veterans to play in FacWar. That does, in part require ensuring FacWar is a satisfying, challenging, and rewarding experience. I do want to get vets out of pubs. And I'm not opposed to team deploy. If team deploys in FacWar were pitted against other team deploys, you would have essentially the old corp battles system (which was the old FacWar system) running on the new FacWar system. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Chairman Ma0 Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:14:00 - [18] - Quote As a relatively new player, and very new poster to the forums, I would really like to see team deploy and a more challenging faction warfare. We already have pubs for solo players, they are safe and fun. Why do we need two game modes that are the same (faction warfare and skirmish)? Wouldn't it be better for the game to have more variety? Wouldn't faction warfare be the place to make that happen? I'm totally okay with there being a game mode that I choose not to enter since I'm not in a corp. I have pubs after all. Hey Breakin Stuff any room for me with goonfeet? I like your style.
Thor Odinson42 molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 4810	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:15:00 - [19] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Being in FacWar doesn't make it any less likely to be a pubstomp. If there is no attempt at balance, then there's no challenging gameplay for anyone. Just a bad experience for both teams. The main "restriction" that's at fault, is the 16 player team limit. If it was possible to pit an organized team against perhaps a slightly larger number of randoms to compensate, it might be possible to balance. The reason EVE balance isn't relevant here, is because in EVE you can swarm/outnumber an opponent, but DUST makes this impossible. Trying to make the EVE sov system work in DUST (planetary conquest) largely failed for the same reason. What if players got together and attempted to get better to get whatever goodies are there that would make it worth their time and effort? What if players joined FW channels and people built teams in a similar manner to preparation for PC? What if the stuff was so rewarding that it made people buy FW boosters? What if there was something worth fighting for in Dust? Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Thor Odinson42 molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 4810	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:18:00 - [20] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Just another area that he fails to see the potential benefit to newer players. Give the more experienced players something shinier to do and it will allow more room for new and/or casual players in pubs. Strongly wishing to encourage veterans to play in FacWar. That does, in part require ensuring FacWar is a satisfying, challenging, and rewarding experience. I do want to get vets out of pubs. And I'm not opposed to team deploy. If team deploys in FacWar were pitted against other team deploys, you would have essentially the old corp battles system (which was the old FacWar system) running on the new FacWar system. If you limited it to team vs team without any room for fill ins then you'd end up with lopsided matches due to disconnects, etc. You'd also end up with annoying long queue times which is hard to imagine given the long queue times currently. You seem to look down on others ideas a LOT without coming up with any solutions or alternative ideas. You are the "that guy". Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42

Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1913	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:33:00 - [21] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Being in FacWar doesn't make it any less likely to be a pubstomp. If there is no attempt at balance, then there's no challenging gameplay for anyone. Just a bad experience for both teams. The main "restriction" that's at fault, is the 16 player team limit. If it was possible to pit an organized team against perhaps a slightly larger number of randoms to compensate, it might be possible to balance. The reason EVE balance isn't relevant here, is because in EVE you can swarm/outnumber an opponent, but DUST makes this impossible. Trying to make the EVE sov system work in DUST (planetary conquest) largely failed for the same reason. Your still proposing un-needed restrictions. This is low sec space and should be where the real sandbox of dust occurs. Even team balancing shouldn't be a thing in FW. We have none in FW currently and it sounds like you are proposing such a system be put in place. This is inherently opposed to CCP's game design philosophy. Being in FW means it can't be a pub stomp because it is not a public match. Pub matches are the place you get to cry about balance and fairness. There should be no notion of this once you move into the wilds of low sec. Yes, in Eve swarming is an option but generally FW is carried about by small bands of frigates in EvE. Players could bring in large fleets but there is little incentive to do so thanks to the way LP is divided among fleet members. Large fleets simply wouldn't be profitable. So yes, dust has some constraints that are not present in Eve (ie the player count limitations) but just because those limitations are there does not mean that you need to impose more artificial limitations. Your simply taking sand out of my sandbox and telling me I have to play your way. I've seen you argue against just that in numerous other threads. Are you saying that your not in favor of any sort of sandbox play now? As to your argument that FW matches would always be one sided if there was team deploy I think players would quickly adapt to the new state of the game and know that FW is where you go with 16 like minded people for coordinated battles. It really appears as if you undervalue players ability to self organize which is what would happen if team deploy was implemented. Those empty fw channels that were created so long ago would fill back up and random players would begin team deploying from there. People would still enter FW solo but would more often choose to self organize into groups prior to venturing into FW leaving pubs for solo players and new players. I find your lack of faith in the player base disturbing since you are supposed to be our representative. Look at the Dust communities strengths and realize that they are mature enough to understand how a team deploy option would alter FW to bring more competetive, aggressive matches which they can participate in. Now with more evil.
Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1913	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:34:00 - [22] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Just another area that he fails to see the potential benefit to newer players. Give the more experienced players something shinier to do and it will allow more room for new and/or casual players in pubs. Strongly wishing to encourage veterans to play in FacWar. That does, in part require ensuring FacWar is a satisfying, challenging, and rewarding experience. I do want to get vets out of pubs. And I'm not opposed to team deploy. If team deploys in FacWar were pitted against other team deploys, you would have essentially the old corp battles system (which was the old FacWar system) running on the new FacWar system. If you limited it to team vs team without any room for fill ins then you'd end up with lopsided matches due to disconnects, etc. You'd also end up with annoying long queue times which is hard to imagine given the long queue times currently. You seem to look down on other's ideas a LOT without coming up with any solutions or alternative ideas. You are "that guy". Thor is making very good points here. Now with more evil.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3864	Posted - 2014.09.30 17:12:00 - [23] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you limited it to team vs team without any room for fill ins then you'd end up with lopsided matches due to disconnects, etc. You'd also end up with annoying long queue times which is hard to imagine given the long queue times currently. Actually, if you did this thing called "reading my posts", I specifically suggested that matchmaking would still be used to fill teams where the team deploy was short of 16 people. Say if one used team deploy to deploy two squads of six, or had 14 people, or whatever. Mobius Kaethis wrote: Thor is making very good points here. Thor might make good points if he read posts. But he didn't, so he isn't. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Thor Odinson42 molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 4819	Posted - 2014.09.30 17:42:00 - [24] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you limited it to team vs team without any room for fill ins then you'd end up with lopsided matches due to disconnects, etc. You'd also end up with annoying long queue times which is hard to imagine given the long queue times currently. Actually, if you did this thing called "reading my posts", I specifically suggested that matchmaking would still be used to fill teams where the team deploy was short of 16 people. Say if one used team deploy to deploy two squads of six, or had 14 people, or whatever. Mobius Kaethis wrote: Thor is making very good points here. Thor might make good points if he read posts. But he didn't, so he isn't. I must admit that I didn't catch that. You have a funny way of agreeing with people. Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 7685	Posted - 2014.09.30 17:48:00 - [25] - Quote Team Deploy In Faction Warfare yes I can agree with that but absolutely no Matchmaking in Faction Warfare, this isn't Hi-Sec for gods sake. Keep the Balance and matchmaking for High Security contracts but for Low-null security there shouldn't be any. Something's wrong when you regret Things that haven't happened yet
Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1914	Posted - 2014.09.30 18:07:00 - [26] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you limited it to team vs team without any room for fill ins then you'd end up with lopsided matches due to disconnects, etc. You'd also end up with annoying long queue times which is hard to imagine given the long queue times currently. Actually, if you did this thing called "reading my posts", I specifically suggested that matchmaking would still be used to fill teams where the team deploy was short of 16 people. Say if one used team deploy to deploy two squads of six, or had 14 people, or whatever. Mobius Kaethis wrote: Thor is making very good points here. Thor might make good points if he read posts. But he didn't, so he isn't. Oh you misunderstood me. I was referring to Thor's second paragraph where he points out that you are very down on the ideas of others without generating any meaningful alternatives other than claiming we are wrong. I've yet to see someone agree with you about this actually. As CPM aren't you supposed to represent the community? Currently your doing a very poor job of it. Now with more evil.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3871	Posted - 2014.09.30 18:48:00 - [27] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: Oh you misunderstood me. I was referring to Thor's second paragraph where he points out that you are very down on the ideas of others without generating any meaningful alternatives other than claiming we are wrong. I've yet to see someone agree with you about this actually. As CPM aren't you supposed to represent the community? Currently your doing a very poor job of it. The funny thing is where I keep having to point out how I suggested alternatives or thoughts that nobody read or everyone ignored. ;) The same thing happened in the "auto-squad" thread where I had suggested a much easier way to auto-form squads (but not removing solo queue capability) like three pages prior to any acknowledgement of it. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 3449	Posted - 2014.09.30 18:54:00 - [28] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: I've yet to see someone agree with you about this actually. As CPM aren't you supposed to represent the community? Currently your doing a very poor job of it. I agree with this post. Most important sentence highlighted... Soraya Xel wrote: I am fine with Team Deploy as long as it is teams versus teams. A full team should never be allowed to match against a matchmaking-assembled team. Even in FW, a team deploy versus even highly skilled players will usually be a pubstomp. He imposes order on the chaos of organic evolution...
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3874	Posted - 2014.09.30 20:47:00 - [29] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: As CPM aren't you supposed to represent the community? Currently your doing a very poor job of it. I see this comment every time I disagree with someone. Let me explain: My job is to collect user feedback from the community and pass it on to CCP. Part of that job is also to filter that feedback. Which yes, entirely means I can not pass on your idea because it's really dumb. (Or, in this case, because another CPM mentions your idea on a weekly basis, so me doing it too is largely redundant.) My job is an entirely one way communication method where I tell CCP stuff. (I actually have no obligation to talk to anyone or post on the forums at all, but arguably talking to people helps you get more feedback, so I feel it's pretty useful.) My job is, at no point, to agree with you on the forums. I'm not sure why anyone would think this is a thing. I honestly am kinda scared of the fact that you may think you're voting in agreement lackeys who will just agree with you because you and three of your corp members who stand the most to benefit from the change agree with each other. (600 man corp? Team deploy where you're not pitted against another team would be pretty useful for you, I admit. Your whole corp would have an easy farming method.) I am a player, and my own person with my own opinions, ideas, and thoughts. Some people voted for me because they think I have halfway decent thoughts. You aren't privy to what I pass on or don't pass on as feedback, or what does or doesn't make it to those conversations, so to be blunt, you have no idea how well I am or not doing my job. (This is a bad thing, IMHO, and hopefully when the summit comes around, we can have real meeting minutes so people can see how much people contribute, but I digress.) Don't treat me like I'm your yes man. I'm not, and I never will be. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17934	Posted - 2014.09.30 20:51:00 - [30] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: As CPM aren't you supposed to represent the community? Currently your doing a very poor job of it. Translation: You didn't agree with my personal opinion, therefore you are a bad representative. Get out. The forums have ruined me.

Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 3318	Posted - 2014.09.30 20:59:00 - [31] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you limited it to team vs team without any room for fill ins then you'd end up with lopsided matches due to disconnects, etc. You'd also end up with annoying long queue times which is hard to imagine given the long queue times currently. Actually, if you did this thing called "reading my posts", I specifically suggested that matchmaking would still be used to fill teams where the team deploy was short of 16 people. Say if one used team deploy to deploy two squads of six, or had 14 people, or whatever. Mobius Kaethis wrote: Thor is making very good points here. Thor might make good points if he read posts. But he didn't, so he isn't. Oh you misunderstood me. I was referring to Thor's second paragraph where he points out that you are very down on the ideas of others without generating any meaningful alternatives other than claiming we are wrong. I've yet to see someone agree with you about this actually. As CPM aren't you supposed to represent the community? Currently your doing a very poor job of it. Profiles in Courage, read that, it touches on the topic of this, if you can find a copy, read it. http://evil-guide.tripod.com/
Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1916	Posted - 2014.10.01 04:35:00 - [32] - Quote I will adress your last post out of sequence simply because it is easier for me to process, not because I am trying to twist your words or intentions in any way. Soraya Xel wrote: Don't treat me like I'm your yes man. I'm not, and I never will be. I never asked for you to be a yes man and I even insinuated that you should agree with me. If you actually read my post you would notice that I stated quite clearly how I think your position should play out, a set of practices that nicely lines up with how you described your job title. Let me reiterate my points. Step 1: see post and read it in detail. Step 2: ask questions about a post to either generate further conversation or clarify confusing elements. Step 3: Make personal opinion statement if you like (optional) Step 4: repeat steps 1-3 with gaining additional information and clarification as needed, Step 5: report ideas/feedback to CCP if it is in anyway credible. Additionally since you are the CPM representative working with this thread, not your cohort, it is up to you to say that there are community members invested in said idea. While other members of the CPM may state that they think something is important they are not engaging with the forum community with regard to this topic, you are, and as such it is your job to represent our views to CCP. Now I am not saying that I expect you to agree with me. Quite the contrary I expect you to go to CCP and say something to the extent of "X thread is generating a lot of conversation on the forums here are its proponents arguments in favor of this idea, here are opponents' ideas, I personally think X." You'll notice that no where in this process do I expect you to act as a yes man, only that I expect you to act as my representative. If you can't do that then yes, I do expect you to get the ** out and let someone else who can share the ideas of the community fill your place. Soraya Xel wrote: yes, entirely means I can not pass on your idea because it's really dumb. A lot of the animosity I am expressing towards you is because from your first post on this thread you have never once shown an understanding of my views on the topic or those of anyone else who choose to support this idea. Your posts have, instead of building understanding, looked to demean and ignore. If you had followed a process like what I outlined all of us involved would be much more inclined to feel that we are being adequately represented by you. Soraya Xel wrote: You aren't privy to what I pass on or don't pass on as feedback, or what does or doesn't make it to those conversations, so to be blunt, you have no idea how well I am or not doing my job. As to what you have told to CCP I'm sure mentioning that you have told CCP what we think is not a violation of the NDA. I don't expect you to give me details. I know your legally constrained, but a simple, "your feed back has been shared," would be fine and would make everyone feel better about what you're doing. Soraya Xel wrote:** I see this comment every time I disagree with someone. To summarize: Perhaps you see comments questioning your membership on the CPM because you don't understand how we interpret your comments and that you don't understand what we mean by questioning your dedication to acting as a community representative. Now with more evil.
Mobius Kaethis molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1919	Posted - 2014.10.01 16:52:00 - [33] - Quote It would be very nice to get some Dev input on the core idea here. Now with more evil.
Kaeru Nayiri Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 61	Posted - 2014.10.01 21:00:00 - [34] - Quote To the OP I'd like to see this happen for FW. And while we are at it, add a "team finder" mode similar to squad finder, for randoms to try and hook up with bigger teams.
Atiim 12645	Posted - 2014.10.01 21:15:00 - [35] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: Stop insinuating that something nefarious is going on. It just makes you look ridiculous. I'm 99% sure that he was not implying that something nefarious is going on, and that the post was a light hearted joke. TBF though, I am seeing a lot of ML people ask for Team Deploy. Mobius Kaethis wrote: Have you actually ever played a game where there is team deployment? If you had you would know that a full team does not always win against a skilled group of randomly assembled players. Give it a try. While you may have concerns about the synced squad stomping constantly it is entirely unfounded. You must be trolling. Any one squad with the slightest amount of decency is guarranteed to win a pub. If you can't do the same with 10 more players (who are organized & on comms, no less) then you need to do the following: [XMB] > [Game] > DUST 514 Tap Gû¦ Select "Uninstall" The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3884	Posted - 2014.10.01 21:20:00 - [36] - Quote Atiim, I don't think it's "nefarious evil secret plot" in that I think they're incredibly overt about it. ;) If you want to drum up support for something and not make it look like a corp agenda, at least use like... alts or something. But the problem is... teams versus not teams, the teams will always win. This means that groups that can easily deploy teams (like the 600-man Molon Labe, which I am hesitant to call a coincidence) will have an incredible and distinct advantage over other players. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1925	Posted - 2014.10.01 22:23:00 - [37] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Atiim, I don't think it's "nefarious evil secret plot" in that I think they're incredibly overt about it. ;) If you want to drum up support for something and not make it look like a corp agenda, at least use like... alts or something. But the problem is... teams versus not teams, the teams will always win. This means that groups that can easily deploy teams (like the 600-man Molon Labe, which I am hesitant to call a coincidence) will have an incredible and distinct advantage over other players. Why would any of us ever use alts to support something each of us individually seem to believe in. If you a player doesn't have the strength of character to promote ideas with their main, for good or ill, than they have no place sharing ideas at all. Its called integrity, you might not believe in it but I certainly do. I must say I still hate how your ideas do nothing to promote FW as the hardcore game mode in between pub matches and PC. Your constant protection of solo players really has no place in the no holds bar low sec space the FW exists in. The more I think about your posts the more I am convinced that you essentially want to split dust into two different communities. One half that wants to work as a team and the other half that wants to run solo. Do you want to see a solo PC mode as well? Individual players who own districts which can only be taken by one-vs-one combat? Segregating the dust community based upon a players predeliction for solo vs team play does nothing but dilute the sandbox elements of a game which already has numerous artifical constraints. The craziest thing about your whole stupid opposition to team deploy in FW is that it is already happening. You can already deploy a full team into a FW, match it is simply more annoying than it would be with a single team deploy button. Since this is already happening and it has yet to ruin FW for solo players how would a simpler method of team entry be a negative? It seems far more likely that, instead of FW becoming the dominion of massive corps it would become a training ground for every corp. Regardless of its size. Matches in FW would become fiercely contested with tactics and stragtegies constantly evolving and shifting. Solo players would still have public matches where they would be well protected from full team cue syncs (the mu matchmaking system does a good job of preventing this), so what is the problem? Why are you so insistent on extending the same protections that should be in place for pub matches to the more challenging, less regulated, world of FW? Shouldn't we provide game modes to players that step them up, towards PC, which is ostensibly Dust's end game? How would retaining a solo only FW mode help provide this structure? Now with more evil.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3886	Posted - 2014.10.01 22:50:00 - [38] - Quote You want to make FacWar more like PC, Mobius. Here's the problem: PC sucks. It died as a game mode. Why? Because it wasn't designed competently, and you're promoting the primary problem it has. This has nothing to do with solo players (or your corp's crusade for auto-squadding), it's about anyone who can't guarantee their corp has 16 people on every time they queue. The list of corps that can do that is likely limited to two or three. Your own corp being one of them. So your corp will profit immensely, whereas corps that get five or six people on at once get stomped by you every time. If you want real challenge, solid gameplay, you would support me. Teams versus teams. Great gameplay people can get at any time of the day. But you want to be able to stomp, you want FacWar to be hardmode for everyone else, and easymode for Molon Labe. Because that's what you're advocating. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3886	Posted - 2014.10.01 22:59:00 - [39] - Quote And stop trying to strawman and represent me as against team deploy. I'm for it. I'm against enabling Molon to farm randoms via your insistence that teams not have to face other actual teams. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2207	Posted - 2014.10.01 23:13:00 - [40] - Quote If everything was right in the world, this is what should happen: FW, PC, and other types of matches (pubs and contracted battles (e.g. battles corps set up to fight each other outside of PC)) all need to be considered separate and profitable features to this game. Faction Warfare needs to be war. Corps/other forces should apply for a faction like in Eve and be pitted against other corps for territory or whatever in Eve. Profits will come from salvage, small bounty prizes, and selling LP items on the market (hopefully there's a market and LP items are worth more than Proto, i.e. lower requirements and some +proto gear as well). Further integration with Eve pilots should be worked on as well, both having considerable influence on each other. As for the details on how this should happen, I have no idea, but it needs to one way or another. It should not be just another Pub match as is currently. PC should be changed to a "Farms and Fields" form of profit. Players fight over districts for no profit except salvage, similar to what we have now. I have no problems with the mechanics of PC battles other than bugs and stuff. Once territory is claimed, players can roam a landscape and fight Pirate and Drone NPCs for salvage and CONCORD bounties, etc. Also, a corp may contract another to farm their districts, for a set price or percentage, allowing non-district holders access to this form of PvE (this wouldn't be the only form of PvE, but a more profitable and difficult one). As for how corps attack districts and preventing district locking, I have no idea, but we can think of something. Pubs wouldn't change much. They'd be a reliable but low form of moneymaking (similar to missioning in Eve). Corp/Fight contracts can be made that can pit one corp or group of players against another, but no money will be rewarded or stats recorded (to prevent boosting). Stakes can be wagered at the start and perhaps spectators could be allowed somehow as well. Some form of High Sec PvE could also be allowed for solo or group players, but wouldn't be as profitable or difficult as PC/Low sec ratting. There are a bunch of nuances I overlooked, but this is generally how things should be. Dust was real! I was there! My current background

Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1925	Posted - 2014.10.01 23:14:00 - [41] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: You want to make FacWar more like PC, Mobius. Here's the problem: PC sucks. It died as a game mode. Why? Because it wasn't designed competently, and you're promoting the primary problem it has. You're seriously saying that the problem with PC matches is teams being able to coordinate and be composed of members of a single corp? Really? That is the whole essence of a team based shooter. Also, I hate to tell you but PC hasn't died. It has changed, sure. I would argue that it has changed for the better in several key respects the largest of which is the removal of passive isk generation. If anything PC is a better more inclusive game mode than it ever was before. Yes, I would like to treat FW as a game mode in between PC and pubs. FW matches should allow a higher level of coordination with greater risks and equivalent rewards. How is that a bad thing? Soraya Xel wrote: This has nothing to do with solo players (or your corp's crusade for auto-squadding), it's about anyone who can't guarantee their corp has 16 people on every time they queue. The list of corps that can do that is likely limited to two or three. Your own corp being one of them. So your corp will profit immensely, whereas corps that get five or six people on at once get stomped by you every time. Ahh now we are finally getting somewhere. I respect that you are trying to protect small corps. That is great and I'm glad someone is doing it. I don't agree that only three or so corps are able to consistently field 16 people though. Nor do I feel that adding a team deploy button would significantly change FW in any way. Has Molon Labe. or any of the other large corps ruined FW with their current cue syncing? Have we forced small corps out of FW? Don't you think it more likely that once this option was available groups of players interested in fighting in FW would group up in a FW chat room and cue in as a team? This would allow small corps to band together into informal alliances which would easily allow them to compete with any of the larger corps. Solo players could to the same thing. Infact, that was the initial intent when many of the FW chat rooms were created. A team deploy option would reinvigorate those chatrooms boosting player interaction. Taking this view team deploy would be a win for all players from the newest solo guy through the largest mega corp. You seem really hung up on the idea that Molon would somehow be able to make unfair profits with a team deploy option. How would we benefit from it more than any other corp or individual? All corps could deploy full teams in FW even if they did have to draw upon allinace members or other people from chat channels. Also, since the payouts from FW are fixed we wouldn't be making any more from FW than we currently do. I already cue sync whole teams into FW, how would a button allowing us to team deploy suddenly make us more lp or isk? Now with more evil.
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1925	Posted - 2014.10.01 23:18:00 - [42] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: And stop trying to strawman and represent me as against team deploy. I'm for it. I'm against enabling Molon to farm randoms via your insistence that teams not have to face other actual teams. I am in no way trying to mis-represent your opinion. You are clearly trying to segregate FW into two different game modes, which is inherently wrong when FW is supposed to be more challenging, and more of a sandbox. Your proposal to separate teams from solo players has no place in a sandbox where player interactions and choices need to be freed from the handholding and protectionism of public matches. Low sec vs high sec and all that. Now with more evil.
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1925	Posted - 2014.10.01 23:21:00 - [43] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: If everything was right in the world, this is what should happen: FW, PC, and other types of matches (pubs and contracted battles (e.g. battles corps set up to fight each other outside of PC)) all need to be considered separate and profitable features to this game. Faction Warfare needs to be war. Corps/other forces should apply for a faction like in Eve and be pitted against other corps for territory or whatever in Eve. Profits will come from salvage, small bounty prizes, and selling LP items on the market (hopefully there's a market and LP items are worth more than Proto, i.e. lower requirements and some +proto gear as well). Further integration with Eve pilots should be worked on as well, both having considerable influence on each other. As for the details on how this should happen, I have no idea, but it needs to one way or another. It should not be just another Pub match as is currently. PC should be changed to a "Farms and Fields" form of profit. Players fight over districts for no profit except salvage, similar to what we have now. I have no problems with the mechanics of PC battles other than bugs and stuff. Once territory is claimed, players can roam a landscape and fight Pirate and Drone NPCs for salvage and CONCORD bounties, etc. Also, a corp may contract another to farm their districts, for a set price or percentage, allowing non-district holders access to this form of PvE (this wouldn't be the only form of PvE, but a more profitable and difficult one). As for how corps attack districts and preventing district locking, I have no idea, but we can think of something. Pubs wouldn't change much. They'd be a reliable but low form of moneymaking (similar to missioning in Eve). Corp/Fight contracts can be made that can pit one corp or group of players against another, but no money will be rewarded or stats recorded (to prevent boosting). Stakes can be wagered at the start and perhaps spectators could be allowed somehow as well. Some form of High Sec PvE could also be allowed for solo or group players, but wouldn't be as profitable or difficult as PC/Low sec ratting. There are a bunch of nuances I overlooked, but this is generally how things should be. I totally agree Vulpes. That is a wonderfully vision for what each game mode should aspire to be. Now with more evil.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2208	Posted - 2014.10.01 23:34:00 - [44] - Quote @Mobius: Soraya and I do agree that a team deploy in pubs sounds like a bad idea (because Molon is amazing and would crush all the competition. If such a thing were to exist, it should only be limited to fight similarly sized and skilled/Mu'd teams, with high skilled players filling in the spaces. Personally, I much prefer my wager battle system, where teams can choose to fight each other and place wagers on who will win, or just fight for free at the expense of gear lost in battle (again, no bounty or anything). @Soraya FW and PC should be all out warfare, FW especially. I have no specifics on how it should be done, but FW needs to be dependent on the people that play it, not how a system tries to balance things. If on faction wants to completely stomp the other, it should, but there should be incentives for others to join a losing Faction too (increased payouts for being the 'underdog,' natural rise in market prices for those factions items, etc.). This is the dynamic and competitive gameplay that makes Eve fun and exciting (though honestly FW could use some work there as well). Dust was real! I was there! My current background
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3886	Posted - 2014.10.02 00:03:00 - [45] - Quote Mobius Kaethis wrote: I am in no way trying to mis-represent your opinion. You are clearly trying to segregate FW into two different game modes, which is inherently wrong when FW is supposed to be more challenging, and more of a sandbox. Your proposal to separate teams from solo players has no place in a sandbox where player interactions and choices need to be freed from the handholding and protectionism of public matches. Low sec vs high sec and all that. I am fine with the FW queue filling in incomplete teams with smaller groups or solo players, but the problem is very simply that team deploy versus squads not team deployed is not gameplay. It's a stomp. Enabling a design that will render FacWar the same is PC is not a good idea. And by same problem as PC, I meant, a design that excludes all but a few top end corps. Vulpes concept for PC is certainly what PC needs to be, but it won't happen in DUST. As Vulpes says, it needs PvE content. And that's Legion. Unfortunately, Planetary Conquest was designed with PvE in mind, which never happened, and Faction Warfare was designed with the market in mind, which also never happened. I think a mode to directly challenge another corp without having a district involved would be amazing too, Vulpes. Some pretty big wagers came out of the old corp battle system back in the day. The problem is that FacWar can't be an all out war without balance. Look at EVE sovereignty, where there is no balance. War doesn't happen anymore. The game is stagnant because the game was designed in a way that prevented competition. There's no good reason to go to war, and there's no way to win a war even if you tried. FacWar will become the same if no consideration for balance is made. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1925	Posted - 2014.10.02 00:55:00 - [46] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: The problem is that FacWar can't be an all out war without balance. Look at EVE sovereignty, where there is no balance. War doesn't happen anymore. The game is stagnant because the game was designed in a way that prevented competition. There's no good reason to go to war, and there's no way to win a war even if you tried. FacWar will become the same if no consideration for balance is made. Wait how could a game like dust ever support a FW mode that does not result in conflict without a massive rewrite of FW. In its curent state people will always be fighting in it since that is the only way to earn LP. There is no passive gain from FW and so no incentive to do anything but fight. This is the same state that was brought to PC which essentially ended the domination by a single allinace. There is no point in a blue donut any more so your fears have been neutralized. As to team deploy against solo players preventing competition you haven't addressed the fact that current cue syncs have not created an atmosphere in FW that prevents anyone from participating. That is really all it comes down to. The separation of FW into two areas, team deployed and not team deployed, would not serve to protect anyone but would fragment the community. Massive corps won't be any more dominant in a post team deploy FW than they currently are. Additionally by allowing easier team deploy you will shrink the number of solo players and squads in FW which will make it more competetive not less. No one wants stomping. Not the stompers and not the stompees. What you seem to misunderstand is that adding a team deploy button won't change a single thing about how FW plays out since whole team cue syncs can and do already happen. All I want is a button that makes it easier to perform a group deploy. This is already possible in the game and simply giving it a formal structure will not make any fundamental change to FW. Now with more evil.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3886	Posted - 2014.10.02 02:33:00 - [47] - Quote I would argue that the reason FW still works with queue sync is something that would change with your proposal. Namely, that there's generally still a good chance right now of not ending up pitted against a full team. You want to make team deploying a lot more popular, which would change that atmosphere drastically. Because yes, as of now, every time I've seen a queue sync in FW, the queue sync wins. If anything, it's proof of the problem you aim to magnify. Making it simpler, and particularly much faster to do, leading to more team queues, leading to more being stomped if you aren't in a team queue, leading to less quality non-teams in FW. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1928	Posted - 2014.10.02 14:56:00 - [48] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I would argue that the reason FW still works with queue sync is something that would change with your proposal. Namely, that there's generally still a good chance right now of not ending up pitted against a full team. You want to make team deploying a lot more popular, which would change that atmosphere drastically. Because yes, as of now, every time I've seen a queue sync in FW, the queue sync wins. If anything, it's proof of the problem you aim to magnify. Making it simpler, and particularly much faster to do, leading to more team queues, leading to more being stomped if you aren't in a team queue, leading to less quality non-teams in FW. But that is where player built responses will come into play. Part of the amazing thing about sandbox gameplay is that once you change a mechanic players will adapt to it. In this case players will adapt by forming larger groups to use for fw. This will negate any advantage corps have leading to more organized groups squaring off and better, more competitive battles for everyone. Placing artificial barriers into the game that segregate solo-players and solo-squads from that new team deploy environment will only serve to segregate the community, restrict emergent player driven game play, and increase waiting time for fw matches. None of the outcomes caused by segregating teams from players are desirable and even the short term protectionism it offers would be negated by groups who a)formed squads of super players (already able to red-line the enemy team in fw without the support of the other 10 people they are teamed up with) b) intentionally cue sync into this segergated mode knowing that they will have a much lower chance of meeting an organized squad and will thus be able to stomp more easily. I recognize that the transition from being able to simply cue into a FW match to forming a team prior to cuing into a fw match won't be instantaneous. There are many vets, as well as several major corps, who enjoy helping newer players. I for one, if a non-segregated team deploy were to be implemented, would make a point of organizing these interested parties and mobilizing them with the goal of hastening this transition in the community. FW has the potential to be a great staging ground in the progression towards dust's end game and vets/training corps organizing fw team deploys would help elevate players to a higher level of game play. As a member of the CPM I'm sure that you could make some major waves by supporting a single team deploy in FW option then, if it ever got implemented, joining me in promoting its function. I realize that this is not how you often choose to spend your time when playing dust, being generally a solo player, but known members of the community are the ones who are would make the transition quickest (every one wants the ear of the CPMs since they are our gateway to the Devs) and frequently have the experience to show younger/solo players how to get the best results out of a full team deployment. Now with more evil.


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.