DUST Search - Much Ado about Driving in Dust 514

All Channels

General Discussions

Much Ado about Driving in Dust 514

» 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)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17966	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:26:00 - [1] - Quote Those of you keeping up with me will know I been working on something massive. Well here it is the first section is mostly done for the public which deals with the command tree. If you have additional links and resources I can use please feel free to hit me up to get them included. You can also freely comment to the side; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ixn2nw1gpSsqolfLcTus0jLTIsgZbED30Fx8-8-v80g/edit?usp=sharing My goal is to get this hammered out as soon as possible now so all other projects are on hold. Also Massive Read you have been warned. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Spectral Clone Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3233	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:30:00 - [2] - Quote I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? EVE: Legion, also known as: Schroedinger's Game, EVE: Limbo, or just "Not-a-game-yet".
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 2266	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:39:00 - [3] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Those of you keeping up with me will know I been working on something massive. Well here it is the first section is mostly done for the public which deals with the command tree. If you have additional links and resources I can use please feel free to hit me up to get them included. You can also freely comment to the side; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ixn2nw1gpSsqolfLcTus0jLTIsgZbED30Fx8-8-v80g/edit?usp=sharing My goal is to get this hammered out as soon as possible now so all other projects are on hold. Also Massive Read you have been warned. allow us to do 0 point turns in HAVs.. im sick of waggleing back and forth with out even manageing to turn.. its cost me more then several HAVs in my time of Dusting. #[[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 2 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17966	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:43:00 - [4] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? That discussion is later. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 156	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:54:00 - [5] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? 1. Boring 2. Go and play BF instead
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17966	Posted - 2014.12.04 15:03:00 - [6] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? 1. Boring 2. Go and play BF instead When they stop allowing a smoke grenade launcher from killing an abrams. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 495	Posted - 2014.12.04 16:03:00 - [7] - Quote For those with a the lack of will to go through the entire thing, its a 39 page document that reads more like a game design thesis or an interns job proposal. Just to get this out of the way a Soma is a Militia tank and is not unlocked with HAV operation, Madrugar is the one your looking for. The same with the dropships, Vipers are militia and Myron are standard. Balochs are milita LAVs (and were called baloch impact when evry player had unlimited free LAVs) and the Methana is the Standard gallente LAV. It doesn't matter when a random forum poster or blueberry doesn't know whats what, but when a CPM, especially when one self appoints himself as the 'voice of vehicle operators' doesn't the Viper is a miltia dropship, ugh, it doesn't bode well. But seeing as you put the time to types i put in the time to read it. Or more less glanced through, too much pork between the charts. 39 pages on one person's opinions on moslty just modifying the various vehicle skill trees, jesus. And the skill tree part isnt finished yet, its to be continued. It just cuts out at page 36, the remaining three pages are headlines for other chatpers and topics. Pretty much the bottom of the pile of pilot / tanker priorities at the moment. Oddly It all devolves into the old skill tree before 1.7 dropped. Mostly because reasons. ''I like this way'' or ''i prefer it that way'' How long will this document be in its final form? I have no idea. So far, its much ado about nothing. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 8510	Posted - 2014.12.04 16:06:00 - [8] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? 1. Boring 2. Go and play BF instead When they stop allowing a smoke grenade launcher from killing an abrams. C4 Trolling will NEVER get old. So simple too (In BF3 at least) Get Buggy. Get in driver seat Friend slaps C4 on the front, sits in side seat with smoke launcher aimed at explosives. Find tank Ram Tank Friend shoots C4 with Smoke launcher Explosion Smoke Launcher kills tank Jeep Driver laughs and drives off into the sunset. Bullet Hell and Duct-Tape? Count me in! FA recruits get free officer BPO's. Enlist today. Must be a scrub to enter.
WARxion ForDUST G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 156	Posted - 2014.12.04 16:10:00 - [9] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? 1. Boring 2. Go and play BF instead True, we are mercenaries with our own stuff. You want something on the battlefield, pay for it. The "look we just came here but someone placed free vehicles all over the place" won't increase the immersion at all. The deployment through RDV is one of the best features of DUST. Yes, sometimes those pilots are stupid but still, it looks good. Yes, I'm that desperate...
Sev Alcatraz 703	Posted - 2014.12.04 16:23:00 - [10] - Quote Unless You plan on buffing HAVSs your just looking to kill the vehicle game, as t is now I have 10 mill sp in vehicles, my best gunlogi can be taken down by a chump in a jeep or by 2 guys with adv swarms. You barly play dust jackass you have just over 7000 kills and I doubt you have ever used a vehicle extensively don't try and fix what you don't understand. Disgruntled vet

Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17969	Posted - 2014.12.04 16:23:00 - [11] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: For those with a the lack of will to go through the entire thing, its a 39 page document that reads more like a game design thesis or an interns job proposal. Just to get this out of the way a Soma is a Militia tank and is not unlocked with HAV operation, Madrugar is the one your looking for. The same with the dropships, Vipers are militia and Myron are standard. Balochs are milita LAVs (and were called baloch impact when evry player had unlimited free LAVs) and the Methana is the Standard gallente LAV. It doesn't matter when a random forum poster or blueberry doesn't know whats what, but when a CPM, especially when one self appoints himself as the 'voice of vehicle operators' doesn't the Viper is a miltia dropship, ugh, it doesn't bode well. But seeing as you put the time to types i put in the time to read it. Or more less glanced through, too much pork between the charts. 39 pages on one person's opinions on moslty just modifying the various vehicle skill trees, jesus. And the skill tree part isnt finished yet, its to be continued. It just cuts out at page 36, the remaining three pages are headlines for other chatpers and topics. Pretty much the bottom of the pile of pilot / tanker priorities at the moment. Oddly It all devolves into the old skill tree before 1.7 dropped. Mostly because reasons. ''I like this way'' or ''i prefer it that way'' How long will this document be in its final form? I have no idea. So far, its much ado about nothing. Sorry about that militia vs military mix up; still have lots on my mind and lots of planning to do out. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17969	Posted - 2014.12.04 17:10:00 - [12] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: Unless You plan on buffing HAVSs your just looking to kill the vehicle game, as t is now I have 10 mill sp in vehicles, my best gunlogi can be taken down by a chump in a jeep or by 2 guys with adv swarms. You barly play dust jackass you have just over 7000 kills and I doubt you have ever used a vehicle extensively don't try and fix what you don't understand. And? You're here encouraging another nerf via inaction. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 3120	Posted - 2014.12.04 17:55:00 - [13] - Quote Well, I like the spreadsheet, but I'd like to point out a few things that vehicles should have. I'll start off with tanks, be forewarned, this will be long. Tanks: As it stands, tanks are a pure AV role. Which in all honesty, should not be the case. In PC, tanks are of little use and an ADS could easily do what they do in the way of AI. That being said, I believe that reintroducing enforcer and Marauder tanks would be a good way to balance this out. Enforcers My thought is this, enforcer tanks are the AI variants of tanks. They would have less EHP, a little more speed, and benefits to large turrets to help them assault infantry. Example: blasters would get lowered dispersion on the Vayu, allowing them to fight infantry more effectively, and make them viable on open maps. Missiles would get more splash so they can catch infantry on them. As it stands currently, tanks don't have much else to do but fight themselves, shoot ADS and become giant roadblocks. Introduction of an AI tank will add more of a robust vehicle world. Marauders My next thought is that marauders should be the AV tanks. They'd have more HP, maybe a little less speed, and benefits that would make them AV titans. Blasters would get something like increased ROF and lowered heat build up, helping them to tear into a shields hull for faster and longer. Missiles would get a damage buff and increased total magazine size. Rails would get reduced heat build up and better cooldown. That's just my two cents on the issue. Tanks need to have an AI version, along with an AV version. Now on to my favoritest thing evar!! Dropships. We all want our Logi Derp back. But there has been some debate as to what their benefit should be. I read somewhere that it should be a lowered spawn time on a mobile CRU. I personally like this idea for both Derps, but the problem with that is there is no real benefit to run one or the other. There should be another benefit along with the CRU spawn time. Question for fellow pilots, we all know that adding resistances per level is a bad idea. Would the racial regen being buffed be better? Example: Shield boosters on LDS would recharge 25% more than on an ADS or normal DS. Another thing that should be looked into is CPU and PG outfits. Armor has always had trouble fitting things CPU wise, I think a buff on armor vehicle CPU has been a long time coming. I'd also like to recommend reducing the Python CPU by 7-9%. The reason I say this is because as far as ADS goes, I don't have to skill too heavy into shield fitting OP. This CPU nerf would make it to where getting the extra levels well worth it. I'd also recommend giving a python PG buff. WARNING: do not buff any more than 59, there will be a definite OP ADS fit. and also none less than 34, any less will be useless. Anyway, that's my ideas. Hope it helps. God and Empress kill me, I'm a level three forum warrior.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17970	Posted - 2014.12.04 18:02:00 - [14] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: Well, I like the spreadsheet, but I'd like to point out a few things that vehicles should have. I'll start off with tanks, be forewarned, this will be long. Tanks: As it stands, tanks are a pure AV role. Which in all honesty, should not be the case. In PC, tanks are of little use and an ADS could easily do what they do in the way of AI. That being said, I believe that reintroducing enforcer and Marauder tanks would be a good way to balance this out. Enforcers My thought is this, enforcer tanks are the AI variants of tanks. They would have less EHP, a little more speed, and benefits to large turrets to help them assault infantry. Example: blasters would get lowered dispersion on the Vayu, allowing them to fight infantry more effectively, and make them viable on open maps. Missiles would get more splash so they can catch infantry on them. As it stands currently, tanks don't have much else to do but fight themselves, shoot ADS and become giant roadblocks. Introduction of an AI tank will add more of a robust vehicle world. Marauders My next thought is that marauders should be the AV tanks. They'd have more HP, maybe a little less speed, and benefits that would make them AV titans. Blasters would get something like increased ROF and lowered heat build up, helping them to tear into a shields hull for faster and longer. Missiles would get a damage buff and increased total magazine size. Rails would get reduced heat build up and better cooldown. That's just my two cents on the issue. Tanks need to have an AI version, along with an AV version. Now on to my favoritest thing evar!! Dropships. We all want our Logi Derp back. But there has been some debate as to what their benefit should be. I read somewhere that it should be a lowered spawn time on a mobile CRU. I personally like this idea for both Derps, but the problem with that is there is no real benefit to run one or the other. There should be another benefit along with the CRU spawn time. Question for fellow pilots, we all know that adding resistances per level is a bad idea. Would the racial regen being buffed be better? Example: Shield boosters on LDS would recharge 25% more than on an ADS or normal DS. Another thing that should be looked into is CPU and PG outfits. Armor has always had trouble fitting things CPU wise, I think a buff on armor vehicle CPU has been a long time coming. I'd also like to recommend reducing the Python CPU by 7-9%. The reason I say this is because as far as ADS goes, I don't have to skill too heavy into shield fitting OP. This CPU nerf would make it to where getting the extra levels well worth it. I'd also recommend giving a python PG buff. WARNING: do not buff any more than 59, there will be a definite OP ADS fit. and also none less than 34, any less will be useless. Anyway, that's my ideas. Hope it helps. TY along with my previous polling thread Ill take everything into consideration and get it out. I am about a 10th of the way done I have to populate the subjects still and still give outlines to everything and do my first 'content' pass. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 3120	Posted - 2014.12.04 18:07:00 - [15] - Quote Whoops, I forgot to talk about small turrets. Silly me! Blasters: The problem is the fact that these do not have enough range, and the dispersion is crap. My recommendation is that you buff the range to about 50 meters, and either lowering dispersion or reversing the effect (like the HMG right now) Missiles: I hear that Rat is considering making an AV and AI variant to missiles. If you do, I recommend keeping this current turret as the AI variant. Every PROPER fitted tank I've shot at with this turret gets away before I can blow it up. Rails: I'll admit, this is a problem with all rail weaponry period, but there are times when I'm shooting the rail, and nothing comes up. After I stop firing, my clip starts draining away. Really irritating to any incubus pilot trying to dogfight. Another issue is the effectiveness they have compared to blasters to door gunning. The solution to this is to add a "shaking effect" to side rail guns. Not too much that they can't even hit LAVs, but enough to where sniping infantry isn't a feasible option. God and Empress kill me, I'm a level three forum warrior.
Booby Tuesdays Tuesdays With Boobies 1038	Posted - 2014.12.04 18:29:00 - [16] - Quote I still blame Wolfman. Half-Assed Forum Warrior / Half-Decent Commando / Damn Good Logi
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 495	Posted - 2014.12.04 18:44:00 - [17] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: We all want our Logi Derp back. But there has been some debate as to what their benefit should be. I read somewhere that it should be a lowered spawn time on a mobile CRU. I personally like this idea for both Derps, but the problem with that is there is no real benefit to run one or the other. There should be another benefit along with the CRU spawn time. Question for fellow pilots, we all know that adding resistances per level is a bad idea. Would the racial regen being buffed be better? Example: Shield boosters on LDS would recharge 25% more than on an ADS or normal DS. Another thing that should be looked into is CPU and PG outfits. Armor has always had trouble fitting things CPU wise, I think a buff on armor vehicle CPU has been a long time coming. I'd also like to recommend reducing the Python CPU by 7-9%. The reason I say this is because as far as ADS goes, I don't have to skill too heavy into shield fitting OP. This CPU nerf would make it to where getting the extra levels well worth it. I'd also recommend giving a python PG buff. WARNING: do not buff any more than 59, there will be a definite OP ADS fit. and also none less than 34, any less will be useless. Anyway, that's my ideas. Hope it helps. On the logi DS, i'd have to wait and see in what state it will be returned to us. Regen would have to be high enough to help vs AV infantry and yet still be succeptible in Air to Air. On the python, i don't see the need to hurt its CPU, but it definitley needs the PG buff. The only reason why it seems to have so much CPU is becase its only low slot is taken up by a complex PG upgrade. If it had enough PG to fit a low slot item such as an armor rep or plate, that CPU would get eaten up drastically. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 2842	Posted - 2014.12.04 19:00:00 - [18] - Quote Level II of LAV is technically useful, as it unlocks the SAGA II "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire
Ryme Intrinseca Dead Man's Game RUST415 2179	Posted - 2014.12.04 19:03:00 - [19] - Quote tl;dr
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17971	Posted - 2014.12.04 19:10:00 - [20] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Level II of LAV is technically useful, as it unlocks the SAGA II SAGA II is still a Saaga I prefitted; I rather see the saga II be an altnerative to the Saga one in shield slot layout. Oerall I think vehicles can use a slot buff. Going to take a nap now the allergies are overpowering my ability to tank them; my sensors been jammed and cant get far whil eblind. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked

Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 35	Posted - 2014.12.05 08:19:00 - [21] - Quote Its late and I'm tired but I want to throw in a "don't forget about MTACs" before I crash. Will try to post something more coherent and useful tomorrow
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17975	Posted - 2014.12.05 12:42:00 - [22] - Quote Greiv Rabbah wrote: Its late and I'm tired but I want to throw in a "don't forget about MTACs" before I crash. Will try to post something more coherent and useful tomorrow mTACs are being thrown in as examples of stuff in the future content and is purely subject as placeholders for now. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5642	Posted - 2014.12.05 13:00:00 - [23] - Quote Because I'm at work and don't have the time to read 39 pages... Does the document cover expected AV/V interactions, statement of intent on how they are supposed to interact, etc? This is a major concern because the lack of different AV types creates massive problems. Further the fact that all of the vehicles are balanced against PRO AV even at the MLT level with the sica/soma this creates a few issues in the back and forth balance. Currently the madrugar and Soma are UP solely because the gunnlogi/sica handily resist the two AV weapons that can reliably slam vehicles of all types. I would like to know how this is addressed. Requiring that maddys die in 3-4 shots from an AFG is fine, but when the gunnlogi can take anywhere up to 9 shots to stop ( you cannot depend on weakspot being readily attackable) there is a major issue because there is no weapon that can similarly bring the gunnlogi TTK down to maddy levels. Because this has not been addressed there will always be a clear superiority in either armor or shields based on the nerf/buff cycle. Further all vehicles being balanced to weather proto gunfire means there is little point in fielding lesser options as they will not affect the course of battle in any meaningful fashion. How does this vehicle proposal address these problems? And further I think marauders should be the terroristic tanks and the enforcers the AV platforms. But that's just me. Enforcers should be glass cannon. Marauders less blasty but with a bit more defense value due to being focused on by infantry AV EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5642	Posted - 2014.12.05 13:02:00 - [24] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: Unless You plan on buffing HAVSs your just looking to kill the vehicle game, as t is now I have 10 mill sp in vehicles, my best gunlogi can be taken down by a chump in a jeep or by 2 guys with adv swarms. You barly play dust jackass you have just over 7000 kills and I doubt you have ever used a vehicle extensively don't try and fix what you don't understand. Oh look, someone who cannot tell the difference between main play character and 514umwar character. Grow up. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2655	Posted - 2014.12.05 15:43:00 - [25] - Quote IWS I appreciate the effort mate but a much shorter more concise piece would be of higher value I feel. I tried to read as much as I could but it did seem to drag on a bit man. "Also I think knives are a good idea, big f**k-off shiny ones" "Guns for show, Knives for a pro" MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 163	Posted - 2014.12.05 15:55:00 - [26] - Quote 1. Far too long 2. Too much waffle 3. Stick the facts/ideas with possible outcomes
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.05 16:31:00 - [27] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? CCP shouldn't incorporate anything that they're doing. Let CCP make their own road. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.05 16:57:00 - [28] - Quote I'm only a few pages down and the amount of grammatical errors is astounding. I'm having trouble reading it because it wasn't proofread before being posted. I'll probably make a few 6000-word replies copying and pasting stuff here with my thoughts on it. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
TechMechMeds KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 6331	Posted - 2014.12.05 17:23:00 - [29] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? 1. Boring 2. Go and play BF instead When they stop allowing a smoke grenade launcher from killing an abrams. Hahahaha. Madbcuzbad!. I am GJRs Renfield.
Her Chosen Grade No.2 102	Posted - 2014.12.05 17:35:00 - [30] - Quote The HAV hardener bonus for the HAV operation skill, should be 2%, not 5%. A possible 50% of hardener duration is to long a window for a tank to be agro

TechMechMeds KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 6332	Posted - 2014.12.05 17:37:00 - [31] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm only a few pages down and the amount of grammatical errors is astounding. I'm having trouble reading it because it wasn't proofread before being posted. I'll probably make a few 6000-word replies copying and pasting stuff here with my thoughts on it. You should apply to Goonfeet. I am GJRs Renfield.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5343	Posted - 2014.12.05 18:46:00 - [32] - Quote I am glad and impressed to see you take this on IWS. This is a large and very important effort. You are one of the very few members of the DUST community who could "write me under the table" . That is a mighty big document. Worth the read though. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 503	Posted - 2014.12.05 18:47:00 - [33] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Because I'm at work and don't have the time to read 39 pages... Does the document cover expected AV/V interactions, statement of intent on how they are supposed to interact, etc? This is a major concern because the lack of different AV types creates massive problems. Further the fact that all of the vehicles are balanced against PRO AV even at the MLT level with the sica/soma this creates a few issues in the back and forth balance. Currently the madrugar and Soma are UP solely because the gunnlogi/sica handily resist the two AV weapons that can reliably slam vehicles of all types. I would like to know how this is addressed. Requiring that maddys die in 3-4 shots from an AFG is fine, but when the gunnlogi can take anywhere up to 9 shots to stop ( you cannot depend on weakspot being readily attackable) there is a major issue because there is no weapon that can similarly bring the gunnlogi TTK down to maddy levels. Because this has not been addressed there will always be a clear superiority in either armor or shields based on the nerf/buff cycle. Further all vehicles being balanced to weather proto gunfire means there is little point in fielding lesser options as they will not affect the course of battle in any meaningful fashion. How does this vehicle proposal address these problems? And further I think marauders should be the terroristic tanks and the enforcers the AV platforms. But that's just me. Enforcers should be glass cannon. Marauders less blasty but with a bit more defense value due to being focused on by infantry AV The answer to everything you asked about is No. It really does talk solely about the skill tree. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Kierkegaard Soren THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 571	Posted - 2014.12.05 20:05:00 - [34] - Quote Whilst I appreciate the time and effort have put into this IWS, I'm sorry to say that this is a pretty poor document. It needs proof reading for it's many grammatical errors, and makes the cardinal sin of not adequately answering its own questions; after plodding through thirty pages of graphs and meandering rhetorical questions I felt no more clued in on the possible solutions to the problems inherent to vehicles that you so correctly identified in the first part of your work. How are vehicles supposed to feel, and how do we make that happen? I do not believe that the answer lies wholly within the skill tree, and I suggest that you take a more holistic and rounded approach to your next attempt at answering the problem. Apologies if this sounds harsh; I mean no malice with this feedback, but it does need to be said. Dedicated Commando. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." -Paul Atreides.
Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 35	Posted - 2014.12.05 22:42:00 - [35] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Greiv Rabbah wrote: Its late and I'm tired but I want to throw in a "don't forget about MTACs" before I crash. Will try to post something more coherent and useful tomorrow mTACs are being thrown in as examples of stuff in the future content and is purely subject as placeholders for now. Please don't ever say that again. It would crush my soul to learn that I could never pilot a minmatar mTAC or MCC
Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 35	Posted - 2014.12.05 22:52:00 - [36] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Because I'm at work and don't have the time to read 39 pages... Does the document cover expected AV/V interactions, statement of intent on how they are supposed to interact, etc? This is a major concern because the lack of different AV types creates massive problems. Rattattis been talking about new av, I'll grab you a link rq. Also mTAC is antitank. Its like a Gundam kinda
Major 0nslaught 57	Posted - 2014.12.06 01:37:00 - [37] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Those of you keeping up with me will know I been working on something massive. Well here it is the first section is mostly done for the public which deals with the command tree. If you have additional links and resources I can use please feel free to hit me up to get them included. You can also freely comment to the side; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ixn2nw1gpSsqolfLcTus0jLTIsgZbED30Fx8-8-v80g/edit?usp=sharing My goal is to get this hammered out as soon as possible now so all other projects are on hold. Also Massive Read you have been warned. My computer exploded by the 39 pages. People are wrong about you when they say that you don't care about this game. You are really quite obsessed. Life is like a box of Proto Locust grenades. You never know what random red berry you're gonna get.
Helghus Resther Heisen Republic 28	Posted - 2014.12.06 01:40:00 - [38] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42. Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees? Increases immersion to have vehicles and AV weapons just sitting there, waiting for people. And everybody using dropships or tanks knowing that AV is within anyone's immediate reach. People crowding the vehicle spawn point, and more getting ran over/hiding from tanks/hiding from dropships. In short, that's a terrible idea. Go back to sucking Titanfall's di- Have fun with Titanfall, but I think that shouldn't be in Dust.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17984	Posted - 2014.12.06 02:07:00 - [39] - Quote Okay feeling much better after a full nights rest and did something productive ( http://i.imgur.com/NCkdNRh.jpg and yes it was delicous though next time 1lb servings not 2) Few things to note; Page Breaks are frequent - Blame google docs on this one because table insertion destroys cursor placing and page format. As for the roughness of the whole document I do work in number of passes so you can say what you are reading is very much the part where it should be called the outline and pre-draft before even a rough draft is even done. So getting in more folks feedback will happen in the next pass unless it is conveniently there for me to shove into it as I do the passes. I'll read feedback when I need a break or doing some more research. Right now just focusing on getting as much done as possible at the moment. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.06 02:57:00 - [40] - Quote Figure 1-1 Vehicle Engineering is completely useless, as it only unlocks the mCRU. If it's wanted, all you need is level 1 and you have access to the only STD mCRU in the game. Electronics you only need to level 1, because enhanced and complex scanners eat into your HP too much. With that said, it's more than 6mil unused SP. It is true pilots are getting a bit tired of getting screwed over dozens of times and usually unjustly for the sole reason of infantry play. This exactly. My role and the role many others want to play has constantly been marginalized and downgraded because we go too fast, have too much HP, cause AV infantry to have to reload, and are able to go behind cover (even though swarms still follow me around two corners), and can activate a NOS/afterburner to escape danger much faster. AV should be a deterrent, not an AV-beats-all solution. To draw a comparison, that's like throwing money at a problem that needs better leadership, not hoping that the current leadership gets better with time (this isn't a dig at CCP). Figure 2-3 This is kinda terrible, as a scout LAV and recon LAV are redundant roles. They should be the fastest car in the game with the best eWar. Dunno the idea behind a ghost LAV, but it sounds like an SP sink for something that won't offer enough of a benefit over a scout LAV. The MAV and MTAC would fall under the Medium Vehicles skill book. The Logi LAV would obviously fall under Light Vehicle Op 3, as would the scout LAV. No idea what a Covert Speeder would be, as the quad in Planetside 2 can have a cloak on it, and cloaks tend to ruin any game. Also don't know how a VTOL would be introduced, as the controls would essentially be the same as the current dropship controls. To simply allow one skill to unlock all of the raceGÇÖs vehicles for that class is a bit silly as will be allowing players to bypass the need to train lesser vehicles of that race to get used to the nuances that race has to offer when it comes to vehicle training. No, it needs to be this way, while the racial vehicle skills could add passive bonuses to their respective hulls. If someone new to piloting wants to dive into the role, they should be able to see how each hull operates. They won't have the SP for a racial skill to have to unlock the hull. There's no reason they should continue to put their SP towards vehicles, while they're pigeonholed into using MLT vehicles for a long time. Inversely, there are some drawbacks to this model: the first of which is the higher the tree grows, the more individualized the vehicles get, thus skill point investment which is expected to rise in multiplier in higher levels begins to explode rapidly, making the massive bulk of the skill tree at the end. (that end right there... ?) Isn't this what EVE is all about? Training your skills over time to unlock better and more specialized hulls, modules and turrets? There should be incentive to invest more SP in a role, which is how it is with infantry skills. Figure 2-4 This doesn't make sense to me. Probably because I don't play EVE, but Racial Veteran and Racial Mastery? I have no idea of the meaning behind those. Figure 2-5 This works the best to me. The skills are where they should be, though the visual looks a little weird, probably because you need a bigger graphic to make everything look better. There have been calls to return the original skill tree as was in 1.8. Chromosome was the best for vehicles, as far as I'm concerned, though I did agree that turret damage had to be reigned in. For that iteration of the game, a Soma with three damage mods and a Compressed Particle Cannon could melt a Marauder in two shots. That absolutely had to be fixed. For that build, AV had an ideal role as a deterrent, whereas vehicles were the best platform for taking each other on GÇô high damage, better maneuverability and more HP. (notification to infantry GÇô you are the reason this is being done again. We've had multiple rebuilds of vehicles and AV because all you did was complain about them, going so far as to say a tank shouldn't be its own best counter. Vehicle play should not be balanced around you, nor should it balanced around pub matches. It should be balanced around FW and PC, which is what CCP wants players to strive for. It could make PC viable again, instead of having the Blue Donut, in which a select few corps decide how many districts you're allowed to own. Competition breeds ingenuity and development, and as I said, it should be balanced around pubs. You don't want to squad with a dedicated tanker? That's your own decision. If nobody on your team is a high-SP pilot, that's just the luck of the draw, and you're out of luck. )You could fit a tank out for high damage, or high HP and mitigation. We had far more modules as well, such as passive shield rechargers for vehicles, and the damage control modules which acted as extra hardeners; nanofiber chassis modules which made a hull faster, but reduced the overall armor. We had turret coolants which allowed us to fire the railgun and blaster for longer before overheating. We also had passive resistance plates, which didn't offer as much resistance, but they were a module we didn't have to activate. I had Madrugar fits where the only module I didn't have to activate was the plate I put on it. I had to worry about an active NOS, active scanner, an active repairer and three active hardeners. A PRO logi only has to worry about 4 equipment slots (minus the Amarr), but they don't need those equipment slots to make sure they don't die. They just need to move to gain HP. Figure 2-6 This is a good model, which provides a better view of the skill tree than the previous one. The Specialist LAV skill and Specialist Dropship skills should be unlocked at level 3, and the specific dropships should be at level 3 as well. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.06 03:13:00 - [41] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: blah Just no. This isn't about what you want, it's about what we want. We make the reasonable suggestions, then compromise with you. It doesn't go infantry decides what happens, and pilots are left in the dark until the finalized changes are published. We can be reasoned with. Problem is, as we've said so much it turns us blue in the face, you all want only your opinion to matter. I've seen people say on here more than once, that because infantry is such a large percentage of the playerbase, that we shouldn't be listened to at all. That's not compromise, that's a dictatorship, with us pilots getting told monthly that our chocolate rations are being raised to 15 grams, which is the same thing said every month. This has to stop, and it has to stop now. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.06 03:15:00 - [42] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm only a few pages down and the amount of grammatical errors is astounding. I'm having trouble reading it because it wasn't proofread before being posted. I'll probably make a few 6000-word replies copying and pasting stuff here with my thoughts on it. You should apply to Goonfeet. I'm happy with R*S. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17984	Posted - 2014.12.06 03:15:00 - [43] - Quote Guys guys guys I am not going to remove any ideas; feel free to add your own but everyone's ideas should be brought in and given merits. I will add pros or cons as they're pointed out in each idea though. TY for your continued participation its a big document and its alot of information for me to generate and process. Also if you have any links you want to contribute to the overall discussion let me at it. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.06 03:24:00 - [44] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Guys guys guys I am not going to remove any ideas; feel free to add your own but everyone's ideas should be brought in and given merits. I will add pros or cons as they're pointed out in each idea though. TY for your continued participation its a big document and its alot of information for me to generate and process. Also if you have any links you want to contribute to the overall discussion let me at it. Dude, CCP has redone vehicles a number of times because the people on here complain about them. It's about time that people realize that the problem doesn't lie with the vehicles. It lies with the people throwing non-AV grenades at them, firing mass drivers, rifles, MLT swarms, sniping them that complain. Those that do have AV, go at it solo. Half the time they're not that far away, out in the open. I killed some guy 4 or 5 times earlier that was trying to swarm my tank; how and why? Because he was out in the open, obviously terrible positioning. That's one of many examples. Seriously, you and CCP need to stop considering infantry's position first, second and third with us pilots being a distant last. With Rattati at the helm with this, he needs to listen to us first. We're not going to be asking for MLT tanks with 10,000 base HP, upgradable to 20,000. We want more mods, one more slot in our HP tank, and our CPU/PG/armor and shield skills back. The bugged rail needed to be fixed a long time ago. Missiles are in a really good place, but I'm sick of firing 2, 4 or 5 missiles instead of all 12 when I hold my R1 down. I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind, as well as saying what ought to be done. Pilots first, then compromise with infantry. Again, infantry has been the sole decision maker on vehicles for too long. It's time for you guys and CCP to engage us, the pilots, and ask us what we want, and then we compromise. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.06 03:28:00 - [45] - Quote And as far as the new vehicles, the full, finished models are already done. All that needs to be done is find the code, tweak it a little bit for everything, then hotfix it back into the game. Also, vehicles are probably designed for when this was a closed beta, back when we had skirmish 1.0. You could hack or destroy the objectives, then move forward to the next set. Tanks were great for that back then, because even though the objectives had a ton of HP, you could destroy them with a few tanks. That's probably what they were designed around, and since we have entirely different modes, this is why they need a complete ground-up rebuild (again), but this time with the current state of the game in mind, rather than a build that's 3 years old and no longer around. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17984	Posted - 2014.12.06 04:25:00 - [46] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Guys guys guys I am not going to remove any ideas; feel free to add your own but everyone's ideas should be brought in and given merits. I will add pros or cons as they're pointed out in each idea though. TY for your continued participation its a big document and its alot of information for me to generate and process. Also if you have any links you want to contribute to the overall discussion let me at it. Dude, CCP has redone vehicles a number of times because the people on here complain about them. It's about time that people realize that the problem doesn't lie with the vehicles. It lies with the people throwing non-AV grenades at them, firing mass drivers, rifles, MLT swarms, sniping them that complain. Those that do have AV, go at it solo. Half the time they're not that far away, out in the open. I killed some guy 4 or 5 times earlier that was trying to swarm my tank; how and why? Because he was out in the open, obviously terrible positioning. That's one of many examples. Seriously, you and CCP need to stop considering infantry's position first, second and third with us pilots being a distant last. With Rattati at the helm with this, he needs to listen to us first. We're not going to be asking for MLT tanks with 10,000 base HP, upgradable to 20,000. We want more mods, one more slot in our HP tank, and our CPU/PG/armor and shield skills back. The bugged rail needed to be fixed a long time ago. Missiles are in a really good place, but I'm sick of firing 2, 4 or 5 missiles instead of all 12 when I hold my R1 down. I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind, as well as saying what ought to be done. Pilots first, then compromise with infantry. Again, infantry has been the sole decision maker on vehicles for too long. It's time for you guys and CCP to engage us, the pilots, and ask us what we want, and then we compromise. I know you're not being a jerk because you gave me a time and place and your share of your information you want to be heard. I must not be a jerk and accept your feedback as well as anyone who was serious enough to put the effort into it. I need to put effort into getting on the document as well. CPM is committed and we just need to convince CCP a time and place and plan of attack to take up on when or how we all get there. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.06 05:07:00 - [47] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Guys guys guys I am not going to remove any ideas; feel free to add your own but everyone's ideas should be brought in and given merits. I will add pros or cons as they're pointed out in each idea though. TY for your continued participation its a big document and its alot of information for me to generate and process. Also if you have any links you want to contribute to the overall discussion let me at it. Dude, CCP has redone vehicles a number of times because the people on here complain about them. It's about time that people realize that the problem doesn't lie with the vehicles. It lies with the people throwing non-AV grenades at them, firing mass drivers, rifles, MLT swarms, sniping them that complain. Those that do have AV, go at it solo. Half the time they're not that far away, out in the open. I killed some guy 4 or 5 times earlier that was trying to swarm my tank; how and why? Because he was out in the open, obviously terrible positioning. That's one of many examples. Seriously, you and CCP need to stop considering infantry's position first, second and third with us pilots being a distant last. With Rattati at the helm with this, he needs to listen to us first. We're not going to be asking for MLT tanks with 10,000 base HP, upgradable to 20,000. We want more mods, one more slot in our HP tank, and our CPU/PG/armor and shield skills back. The bugged rail needed to be fixed a long time ago. Missiles are in a really good place, but I'm sick of firing 2, 4 or 5 missiles instead of all 12 when I hold my R1 down. I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind, as well as saying what ought to be done. Pilots first, then compromise with infantry. Again, infantry has been the sole decision maker on vehicles for too long. It's time for you guys and CCP to engage us, the pilots, and ask us what we want, and then we compromise. I know you're not being a jerk because you gave me a time and place and your share of your information you want to be heard. I must not be a jerk and accept your feedback as well as anyone who was serious enough to put the effort into it. I need to put effort into getting on the document as well. CPM is committed and we just need to convince CCP a time and place and plan of attack to take up on when or how we all get there. CCP Rattati wants to do it but he needs to be armed on how it should be properly done so we wont have to continue to waste months upon precious months of hotfixes trying to resolve the issue; again... I've said several times, he could squad with pilots. Me, Taka, Snugglz... there's many more, but those are the ones I play with. Me and Taka are in DevHangout, Snugglz would probably join it, then we could talk to him, share our experiences with him, maybe he'll take notes, and we could get on the road to recovery as far as vehicles are concerned. We could drop vehicles for him to try, to get a feel for what they're like - PC-quality (not that there's many viable fits) tanks and Pythons. Also, I'd love to know the deciding force to make the railgun to -10% to shield/+ 10% to armor... I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5669	Posted - 2014.12.06 12:41:00 - [48] - Quote I can actually answer the last part of your post spkr. EVE. Rails in EVE are fairly balanced armor vs shields with a slight bias towards cracking armor by default because tgey are by canon more commonly used by caldari. If I recall antimatter ammo is the only one that violates the rule. I'd provide numbers but account is down. Since blasters and rails are kin/thermal primary with blasters leaning towards thermal rails to kinetic. It's that way because they are cleaving to lore to a point. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 36	Posted - 2014.12.06 17:51:00 - [49] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Guys guys guys... ...I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind... I know you're not being a jerk...CPM is committed and ...CCP Rattati wants to do it... I've said several times, he could squad with pilots. Me, Taka, Snugglz... there's many more, but those are the ones I play with. Me and Taka are in DevHangout, Snugglz would probably join it, then we could talk to him, share our experiences with him, maybe he'll take notes, and we could get on the road to recovery as far as vehicles are concerned. We could drop vehicles for him to try, to get a feel for what they're like - PC-quality (not that there's many viable fits) tanks and Pythons. Also, I'd love to know the deciding force to make the railgun to -10% to shield/+ 10% to armor... Ok, spkr, you'reheading in the wrong direction here. Rattatti is busy as all get out trying to get 1.10 ready to deploy by, what Tuesday? That's why iws is doing this. This is what we elected the CPM for. They work with us when the devs are too busy, discussing the direction of the game, what could use to be reworked and how, and they give our feedback to the devs and help them work out a solution without having to waste precious dev time or only allowing one group or another to dictate things. Man, you want the devs to hear the pilots side of things for once... What do you even think this thread is for? This is step 1. Rattatti said he wants to bring back vehicles, establish vehicle parity, and make vehicles more fun and playable. The pilot role absolutely shouldnt be left in the dirt, thats why were here talking about this. So pilots need to speak up here and give all the useful info(let's try to be more constructive than"chromosome was the best " though; that's the immediate response to everything lol) I feel, spkr, that you're going way in the wrong direction by trying to drag rattatti on missions while he's hard at work. Instead drag your pilot friends here so they all get their feedback in where it belongs bc trust, what's said here will get to rattatti shortly. Also please try to keep in mind that while rattatti does love playing this game, he also has a job to do. I hate to be the bearer of bad news yo but game development is a lot harder and more demanding work than ppl on this game realize and that's ridiculous bc this game in particular is a massive and unprecedented undertaking. Yet when the devs are working their asses off ppl act like they're just too lazy to play the game and see what's wrong with vehicles, well he's not. He's working hard, he doesn't have time to play games right now, and the pilots of dust have a couple years on him experiencing firsthand what is and what has been right and wrong about vehicles in dust. There's nuances plain as day to you that he probably wouldn't notice because its not what he's doing day in and day out. Man works for a living, this thread is here to help the dev team do their jobs. Please insert feedback
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2439	Posted - 2014.12.06 18:24:00 - [50] - Quote Greiv Rabbah wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Guys guys guys... ...I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind... I know you're not being a jerk...CPM is committed and ...CCP Rattati wants to do it... I've said several times, he could squad with pilots. Me, Taka, Snugglz... there's many more, but those are the ones I play with. Me and Taka are in DevHangout, Snugglz would probably join it, then we could talk to him, share our experiences with him, maybe he'll take notes, and we could get on the road to recovery as far as vehicles are concerned. We could drop vehicles for him to try, to get a feel for what they're like - PC-quality (not that there's many viable fits) tanks and Pythons. Also, I'd love to know the deciding force to make the railgun to -10% to shield/+ 10% to armor... Ok, spkr, you'reheading in the wrong direction here. Rattatti is busy as all get out trying to get 1.10 ready to deploy by, what Tuesday? That's why iws is doing this. This is what we elected the CPM for. They work with us when the devs are too busy, discussing the direction of the game, what could use to be reworked and how, and they give our feedback to the devs and help them work out a solution without having to waste precious dev time or only allowing one group or another to dictate things. Man, you want the devs to hear the pilots side of things for once... What do you even think this thread is for? This is step 1. Rattatti said he wants to bring back vehicles, establish vehicle parity, and make vehicles more fun and playable. The pilot role absolutely shouldnt be left in the dirt, thats why were here talking about this. So pilots need to speak up here and give all the useful info(let's try to be more constructive than"chromosome was the best " though; that's the immediate response to everything lol) I feel, spkr, that you're going way in the wrong direction by trying to drag rattatti on missions while he's hard at work. Instead drag your pilot friends here so they all get their feedback in where it belongs bc trust, what's said here will get to rattatti shortly. Also please try to keep in mind that while rattatti does love playing this game, he also has a job to do. I hate to be the bearer of bad news yo but game development is a lot harder and more demanding work than ppl on this game realize and that's ridiculous bc this game in particular is a massive and unprecedented undertaking. Yet when the devs are working their asses off ppl act like they're just too lazy to play the game and see what's wrong with vehicles, well he's not. He's working hard, he doesn't have time to play games right now, and the pilots of dust have a couple years on him experiencing firsthand what is and what has been right and wrong about vehicles in dust. There's nuances plain as day to you that he probably wouldn't notice because its not what he's doing day in and day out. Man works for a living, this thread is here to help the dev team do their jobs. Please insert feedback You make it sound as if I want Rattati to stop with 1.10 and start on vehicles immediately. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 36	Posted - 2014.12.06 23:29:00 - [51] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: You make it sound as if I want Rattati to stop with 1.10 and start on vehicles immediately. Sry about that, I hadn'tmeant to. I was trying to encourage you to bring people here to give feedback. Iws needs iNFO he can give to rattata in order for vehicles to get where they ought to be
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2439	Posted - 2014.12.07 00:45:00 - [52] - Quote Greiv Rabbah wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You make it sound as if I want Rattati to stop with 1.10 and start on vehicles immediately. Sry about that, I hadn'tmeant to. I was trying to encourage you to bring people here to give feedback. Iws needs iNFO he can give to rattata in order for vehicles to get where they ought to be Once he makes the thread, they'll all show up. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17992	Posted - 2014.12.07 23:35:00 - [53] - Quote Okay the second portion is done here comes the hardest one redoing vehicles from the ground up. Give me a moment as this will take time to draft up some icons and gifs even if needed. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17994	Posted - 2014.12.08 20:52:00 - [54] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/7AZItRX.gif Brings back memories doesnt it? I have to generate a few more to get a point across. before you ask about why gallente? Gallente vehicles have convenient animation targets on them. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15597	Posted - 2014.12.08 20:57:00 - [55] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: http://i.imgur.com/7AZItRX.gif Brings back memories doesnt it? I have to generate a few more to get a point across. before you ask about why gallente? Gallente vehicles have convenient animation targets on them. Y'know what that little Gif reminded me of? 6375 Armour Madrugars! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2441	Posted - 2014.12.09 08:16:00 - [56] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: http://i.imgur.com/7AZItRX.gif Brings back memories doesnt it? I have to generate a few more to get a point across. before you ask about why gallente? Gallente vehicles have convenient animation targets on them. Y'know what that little Gif reminded me of? 6375 Armour Madrugars! The Bolas rendering 200m away from the drop point on the small 5 point map, crashing into the girders half-wrecking the thing, then dropping it from a mile high and subsequently wasting the tank. I miss the days when fitting 7000 armor on a Maddy was easy, because you still had a lot of room to fit modules. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2441	Posted - 2014.12.09 08:18:00 - [57] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Okay the second portion is done here comes the hardest one redoing vehicles from the ground up. Give me a moment as this will take time to draft up some icons and gifs even if needed. Where's the second portion? You just updated the Google doc? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2442	Posted - 2014.12.09 08:44:00 - [58] - Quote Did you intentionally leave "Spkr4theDead's extended feedback" blank? Once you collate everything, I could write quite a lot about it. It would probably take up 5 whole replies. As it is, the first part took two whole replies, I imagine you're going to write a lot more. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17997	Posted - 2014.12.09 10:00:00 - [59] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Did you intentionally leave "Spkr4theDead's extended feedback" blank? Once you collate everything, I could write quite a lot about it. It would probably take up 5 whole replies. As it is, the first part took two whole replies, I imagine you're going to write a lot more. When I do my next pass ill point out specifics; and yes I have lots more to write. As for now there is a very interestin discussion about to start with CCP Rattati on the LLAV and MHAVs https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=183623&find=unread Give it a go CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked


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.

Bullet Hell and Duct-Tape? Count me in!

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

Life is like a box of Proto Locust grenades. You never know what random red berry you're gonna get.