DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Roadmap 2015

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Roadmap 2015

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 15 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14022	Posted - 2014.12.24 09:42:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players We want to use the opportunity of the holidays and shed some light on our vision for 2015 and get your feedback on the first pillars of the roadmap as we develop it further. First I want to mention the ongoing work that is mentioned in the EPICs such as User Experience. Those EPICs serve to remind us of the ongoing iteration and improvements that we always want to be doing. We are dedicated in our effort to fix, iterate and expand on existing features. More on that later and below. The main vision is that of Planetary Conquest and Warbarges in that context. After the Uprising, we see the rise of powerful Mercenary Captains and their never ending strife. They are growing their powerbases and are now able to command their own Warbarges. In the first iteration we are building the foundation for a multi-phase approach to re-invigorating Planetary Conquest and injecting new blood into this key differentiating feature from other FPSGÇÖs. This will be a handful to explain so we better get right to it. Planetary Conquest GÇô The Vision Phase One We will allow players to build and upgrade their personal Warbarges, as you are no mere grunts now. These huge warships become the center of your powerbase. You will be able to upgrade the Warbarge itself, and invest in valuable modules for the warbarge, that provide the player bonuses, and upgrade the modules as well. The first feedback threads will be about these modules and their bonuses, so better put your thinking caps on. Empowering the player to invest in something meaningful and persistent is a very exciting concept and is necessary as the foundation for further development. Phase Two We want to allow Corporations to be measured on their collective Warbarge Fleets. The Corporation will then be able to invest in power structure/umbrella that either increases the power of each individual Warbarge module or grants brand new bonuses to the Corporation, tentatively called Warbarge Command. Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. This may be done through the introduction of Corporation Rank as the defining metric for Corporation eligibility and power. The lynchpin to this step is the introduction of the Warbarge Clone Vats Module (name TBD) where Clonepacks can be built with regular intervals, allowing Corporations without Districts to launch relatively risk free attacks on Districts. These attacks should be initiated from a list of Districts, displaying Timers, Clones, Corporation and other useful statistics and not from the Starmap itself. Finally, we are working on a different reward method for Planetary Conquest, primarily based on the simple premis of GÇ£you get what you destroyedGÇ¥. Combined with a minimum Corporation Rank to initiate attacks, we may see the end of district-locking and exploits in 2015. We may also reduce the available Timers and/or set Districts to fixed Timers that canGÇÖt be changed. Phase Three This step would be to combine Warbarge Fleets and ownership of Districts, making Districts the crux of any powerful Corporation. This will also instill a strategic element of guerrilla warfare, whereby a coordinated attack may diminish the power of a large Corporation. Prominently displaying the list of the most powerful Corporations should keep everyone on their toes. We also want to create an incentive for players to be in Corporations, aside from now getting Warbarge Command bonuses, and introduce Corporation Missions, that are basically Daily Missions with increased rewards, meaning more rewards for the player and more through Taxes for the Corporation, and a stronger membership. Phase Four Introduce a secondary reason to claim, own and harvest Districts by introducing a resource in New Eden, only found and claimed by DUST Mercenaries. Launching attacks on other Corporation Warbarges is an exciting concept but not a priority to discuss now. Allowing Corporations to host their own challenge matches is also an intriguing concept. And thatGÇÖs all we can share on our vision for Planetary Conquest at the moment. Along these ideological pillars, we stand by our pledge to continue improving the core gameplay of DUST 514 through developing and iterating on features, as well as iterating on the backend with balancing of existing content, reintroduction of removed content and authoring of new content. User Experience Market Experience and Fitting That may mean tweaks to the Market and Fitting, such as recently adding the Scanning Attributes to the fitting screen, Displaying Metalevels etc. These could be the GÇ£restock toGÇ¥ function, better sorting, more information etc. Simple Trading This is of course the long wanted feature of Player to Player trading. The minimum feature is basically click an Item in Assets, and select GÇ£send item toGÇ¥ and GÇ£QTYGÇ¥ from the context UI. Battle Quality Under this Story we have multiple things we want to iterate on, but primarily matchmaking/academy and minimizing player downtime. One of the iterations we are actively working on is GÇ£donGÇÖt put me in battles that are effectively overGÇ¥. Recruiting Tools We have set up three main features, the Corp Finder where Corporations advertise themselves, the Merc Finder where Mercenaries advertise themselves, and New Player Finder where CEOGÇÖs and Recruiters can find and invite Players that are in NPC corps, with an opt-out for Players to be in that list. We will try to develop each of them in an order that makes sense technically. Achievements/Medals/Merits for both Players and Corporations are also ranked high on the Roadmap for us to work on. Well, thatGÇÖs all from us for now. Please share your thoughts and any other feedback. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

BAMM HAVOC Carbon 7 Iron Oxide. 656	Posted - 2014.12.24 09:57:00 - [2] - Quote DUDE don't **** me off..... its Christmas get off this forum and go enjoy it. have a beer on me Merry Christmas Ratman and to everyone at CCP YOU TUBES BEERCANATER PLUS BACON !
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 154	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:05:00 - [3] - Quote Thanks for sharing this info! Especially that you explained Trello Dust 514 Development Roadmap card names, simple titles did not make much sense. Also I'm glad some of mentioned issues came from Trello Dust 514 Community Crowdsourcing, though you do not respond there. I have a question - is Warbage a physical item presented on Dust battlefield or it is Eve ship? Or this is virtual entity you can manage via UI only? <[^_^]>
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7579	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:07:00 - [4] - Quote Initial concerns are: 1) When you say 'Personal Warbarges' and 'Warbarge Fleets', does this mean that each individual player will be able to obtain their own personal warbarge or each corporation in an alliance gets a warbarge to add to the fleet? 2) How will modules be given out to ensure that they are, in fact, valuable? If they are available on the market then the super rich entities are already capable of obtaining them and thereby their value is instantly reduced. 3) What is the primary incentive for wanting to take a district? The stated secondary reason is a material only available to Dust Mercenaries who own districts but I personally feel this should be the primary incentive as "fighting for the sake of fighting" is an artificial war generator as opposed to a legitimate one (obtaining valuable assets). Wars should be made over tactical decision making, not because it's the only way to profit at all. 4) Why base it on loyalty rank? This essentially means that players with extensive Aurum expenditure are preferred as you can gain loyalty rank points faster through Aurum (100 per bought item I believe) as opposed to simply fighting in battles (5 points). Are there any plans to change the system to encourage players who are active as opposed to players who just threw real money at the problem? 5) Minimum corporation rank to initiate attack? I understand the premise behind why (helps reduce district locking) but I'm not sure I agree with the how. It'd be one thing to say that declaring a war costs ISK to keep the war active (how it's done in Eve Online) but saying that you can only do it because your corporation reaches the height requirement isn't exactly in the spirit of New Eden. 6) On the subject of tactical decision making from bullet three, is there any plans on giving value to certain systems over others? What is the incentive to having one district on a planet as opposed to another district on a different planet? Will read over the thread again and see if I have any other thoughts. Aeon Amadi's Important Links I'm a paying player. My opinion matters more.
nicholas73 Glitched Connection 319	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:09:00 - [5] - Quote Looks interesting, looking forward to see how it will work out. Though I am also afraid of the hundreds of other stuff that might break when this launches, please properly QA the stuff before launching it. Proud member of Glitched Connection "Only idiots start a fight they can't win" - Sora (No Game No Life)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11798	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:11:00 - [6] - Quote While the planetary conquest ideas are nice (after the initial read at least), but I feel like these changes won't effect many people since most Dust players have no interest in PC. For all these ideas and changes to PC, the battles will essentially look the same, play the same, and be won by the same tactics. I think the resources and time would be better spent on a new game type similar to the Skirmish 1.0 of closed beta. I want to experience something new in the actual on-the-ground gameplay. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7580	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:15:00 - [7] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: While the planetary conquest ideas are nice (after the initial read at least), but I feel like these changes won't effect many people since most Dust players have no interest in PC. For all these ideas and changes to PC, the battles will essentially look the same, play the same, and be won by the same tactics. I think the resources and time would be better spent on a new game type similar to the Skirmish 1.0 of closed beta. I want to experience something new in the actual on-the-ground gameplay. I agree on the Skirmish 1.0 bit. This should be the primary drive for the new PC mechanics because it simply doesn't make sense to say that you own a district and then have to fight for it the same way the attackers do. However, as for PC itself, there was a greater drive for PC before the rewards for having districts were removed all together. There were a lot of entities (corporations and alliances) who actively participated in PC and it was their preferred method of fighting. I think we need to provide players to delve deeper into the rabbit hole and experience these sort of things, rather than shy away from it in favor of more lobby shooter mechanics. Aeon Amadi's Important Links I'm a paying player. My opinion matters more.
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 126	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:28:00 - [8] - Quote All the planetary conquest stuff is very interesting. As for the timers, I think (if this is possible) that each corporation should defined a personal timer which would be the timer where they have the most chance to get players (or have a default region timer for EU, US, AS). Based on this, districts would have a range of timers accessible. Exemple : Prima Gallicus is a french corporation (so euro TZ). If I put 20h Eve Time as my corporation timer, then I can access timers 4 hours before and after my corp timer. Which mean the earlier timer would be something like 16 Eve and the latest at midnight Eve. Best thing would even be to unlock a range of timers which take in count your number of districts. This would avoid some euro corp to hide from US corps in the earliset timers and vice-versa. Hope this will help you guys. Prima Gallicus diplomat Eve 21 day Trial
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11798	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:30:00 - [9] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: While the planetary conquest ideas are nice (after the initial read at least), but I feel like these changes won't effect many people since most Dust players have no interest in PC. For all these ideas and changes to PC, the battles will essentially look the same, play the same, and be won by the same tactics. I think the resources and time would be better spent on a new game type similar to the Skirmish 1.0 of closed beta. I want to experience something new in the actual on-the-ground gameplay. I agree on the Skirmish 1.0 bit. This should be the primary drive for the new PC mechanics because it simply doesn't make sense to say that you own a district and then have to fight for it the same way the attackers do. However, as for PC itself, there was a greater drive for PC before the rewards for having districts were removed all together. There were a lot of entities (corporations and alliances) who actively participated in PC and it was their preferred method of fighting. I think we need to provide players to delve deeper into the rabbit hole and experience these sort of things, rather than shy away from it in favor of more lobby shooter mechanics. I find the statement about not shying away from PC in favor of "lobby shooter mechanics" kind of annoying to be honest, because I'm not saying PC should be ignored, but just for ONCE in Dust's lifespan that game types finally get some kind of priority, and gets treated as important. The fact that we have been playing the same two modes (Domination is still just Skirmish as much as OMS is still just Ambush) for over two years is extremely extremely frustrating to me. I have waited patiently long enough. PC has received far more attention then game types in general have ever had, so no, I don't think PC changes should yet again take priority over game types. If having both a Skirmish 1.0-like mode and all these PC changes were doable together the way you suggest, I would support it. Afterall, for all its high stakes and district mechanics, PC is basically the same dull tired Skirmish battles we've played a thousand times before. On the subject of game types CCP used to just provide empty promises, and silence, and it's the one thing I care about the most. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3502	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:34:00 - [10] - Quote Everything seems very exciting like always. BUT i've recently started to play some PC when corp is out of mercs. When facing other EU corps framerate is comparable to public, when facing other continents corps framerate drops dramaticaly. Probably give fixed timers will partially fix this issue, but you need to look at technical question before everything else imo. This is a old video, but things are still like this, PC need to be equal on the technical side. Situational awareness also known as passive scan.

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11798	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:42:00 - [11] - Quote My profound disappointment aside, I look forward for the long overdue "restock to" feature, and player trading. I hope by the time it is released it will be advanced enough so 2 players can select items, see each other's selections, and mutually agree on the trade, but the bare minimum you outlined is still very good. I'm sure these recruiting tools will help a lot of new players find corps to educate them, and it may improve player retention as well. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7580	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:53:00 - [12] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Everything seems very exciting like always. BUT i've recently started to play some PC when corp is out of mercs. When facing other EU corps framerate is comparable to public, when facing other continents corps framerate drops dramaticaly. Probably give fixed timers will partially fix this issue, but you need to look at technical question before everything else imo. This is a old video, but things are still like this, PC need to be equal on the technical side. From what I was told at Fanfest, the lag is mostly caused by the game having to load up everyone's individual fittings. PC players usually have a -lot- of different fittings to handle different things and I have personally noticed much better performance on my end when only running up to ten or twelve fittings. Anecdotal evidence of course but, whatever helps. KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: My profound disappointment aside, I look forward for the long overdue "restock to" feature, and player trading. I hope by the time it is released it will be advanced enough so 2 players can select items, see each other's selections, and mutually agree on the trade, but the bare minimum you outlined is still very good. I'm sure these recruiting tools will help a lot of new players find corps to educate them, and it may improve player retention as well. I too am excited for the 'Restock To' feature more than anything else. What I was trying to say about the game-mode bit earlier though is that Skirmish 1.0 should be a high priority for PC combat and I don't see any reason why it couldn't be implemented outside of PC as well. Just, if I had a choice between better PC and more game-modes (outside of Skirmish 1.0) I'd personally prefer PC because it gives more of a sense of progression to players, giving them something to continually strive for, as opposed to different ways of running a pub match. Aeon Amadi's Important Links I'm a paying player. My opinion matters more.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 20494	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:54:00 - [13] - Quote Will warbarges have any integration with FW or will this be a PC based feature? Also, this looks very snazzy. Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
Fleen Costell'o Vacuum Cleaner. LLC Steel Balls Alliance 481	Posted - 2014.12.24 11:09:00 - [14] - Quote Hmmm, waiting fanfest... BUGS514 Find all.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7580	Posted - 2014.12.24 11:21:00 - [15] - Quote Fleen Costell'o wrote: Hmmm, waiting fanfest... Dunno what for. They're not doing anything for Dust 514 or Project Legion at Fanfest. Aeon Amadi's Important Links I'm a paying player. My opinion matters more.
Indy Strizer Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 217	Posted - 2014.12.24 11:32:00 - [16] - Quote Exciting stuff.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14034	Posted - 2014.12.24 12:03:00 - [17] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Fleen Costell'o wrote: Hmmm, waiting fanfest... Dunno what for. They're not doing anything for Dust 514 or Project Legion at Fanfest. I will host roundtables an various topics and a DUST 514 pubcrawl, that's not nothing "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7580	Posted - 2014.12.24 12:08:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Fleen Costell'o wrote: Hmmm, waiting fanfest... Dunno what for. They're not doing anything for Dust 514 or Project Legion at Fanfest. I will host roundtables an various topics and a DUST 514 pubcrawl, that's not nothing Not enough for me to shell out $2000 to go to Iceland over, lol, hence why I wound up cancelling my tickets. In either case, shouldn't have to go to Fanfest to get information about either game. It's nice to have a beer with you guys, don't get me wrong, but I certainly shouldn't feel obligated to spend an entire portion of my salary to learn about my favorite game Aeon Amadi's Important Links I'm a paying player. My opinion matters more.
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 361	Posted - 2014.12.24 13:02:00 - [19] - Quote Fanfest 2009 Welcome to my warbage, there are many liike it... but this one is mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvDKbiUnxTA Upgradeable Personal Spaces One of the main social features I was looking forward to. I was part of push to bring the MAG community to Dust. We had little in the form of Corp (Clan) Management and social features. The warbarge Social Space was to me, a huge step in social interaction and player experience. Opening up Dust to make it feel like a larger world. I imagined leaving my Upgraded Merc Quarters with a few of my Directors and walking out into the Main Lobby of my corp's WarBarge. Seeing my corp members discussing fittings, the last match they played together, trading items and planning attacks. Others may be bragging over a trophy, or arguing about which Command Assets should be deployed in the next Planetary Conquest match. I expected a player cap(max number allowed) and idling auto-kick mechanics placed on these areas but I fully expected them. I can now look forward to providing MORE to my members of my corporation and MORE to the members of my alliance. Making Corporations more relevant is fundamental to growing and maintaining a playerbase, giving players reasons to stay logged on and an end-game to work towards not only as individuals, but as part of something bigger than themselves. Thank you Rat, Merry Christmas... http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1217	Posted - 2014.12.24 13:05:00 - [20] - Quote Will these changes push PC corps to play with their own players and avoid using too many Ringers? Or at least use alliance friends as ringers. I think Corporation Rank will help in this One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!

Kaze Eyrou Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1159	Posted - 2014.12.24 13:10:00 - [21] - Quote This looks amazing. I'll edit with more when I get home. CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou Learning Coalition Mentor // Bug Vaporizer
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4020	Posted - 2014.12.24 13:57:00 - [22] - Quote So initially Warbarges won't have any Planetary Conquest logistical aspect to them? Also, I see that timers and district overview haven't been expounded on. Any chance to get more info on these things, because at face value it doesn't look like the mechanics for PC are going to be changing much in the next patch. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
SILENTSAM 69 SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION 740	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:01:00 - [23] - Quote My first thought and hope is that with our own Warbarges we will be able to move around. I really want some way to get out of the one starbase in one star system. I would love to see mercs moving to differwnt systema and using differwnt local chats.
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4022	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:02:00 - [24] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: My first thought and hope is that with our own Warbarges we will be able to move around. I really want some way to get out of the one starbase in one star system. I would love to see mercs moving to differwnt systema and using differwnt local chats. Have to agree that without a icon on the map at least the idea of owning something that doesn't have an actual location seems.... odd. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Immortal John Ripper 26957	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:03:00 - [25] - Quote Takes a shot of vodka does a short prayer May CCP have mercy on us all. Tacos.
General John Ripper 26957	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:03:00 - [26] - Quote Takes a shot of vodka does a short prayer May CCP have mercy on us all. Tacos.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3423	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:05:00 - [27] - Quote **** it im going to re buy a ps3... i'm sick of seeing all the new awsome award not being able to play it anymore. Yes I now this is in development. But I want back in so im ready =ƒÿå You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Corbina Ninja Expert Intervention 1117	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:07:00 - [28] - Quote simple trading is too simple but better than nothing «Questa è l'Italia del futuro: un paese di musichette mentre fuori c'è la morte.»
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4023	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:12:00 - [29] - Quote Corbina Ninja wrote: simple trading is too simple but better than nothing Looks like CCP is going to introduce one the easiest way to scam in New Eden. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Al the destroyer 0uter.Heaven 213	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:14:00 - [30] - Quote Definitely a move in the right direction can't wait to see the proposals! A BIG +1 for player trading I run around carrying nanohives like I'm delivering pizzas XD

Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1399	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:27:00 - [31] - Quote 10/10
Brush Master Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1372	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:35:00 - [32] - Quote I have to agree that a Skirmish 3.0 needs to be focused on if you are able to make it happen. Skirmish 1.0 actually had a moving MCC with real attack and defense mechanics. If we are upgrading a warbarge, then it makes sense that you can build one up to make it last longer, move faster, etc. On the other side, if you own a district, being able to upgrade your district base has appeal. Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? True Logi. Flying DS from the start. @dustreports
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5523	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:37:00 - [33] - Quote I hope the timers will allow for more fluid fighting. With a platoon or team deploy UI you'd be able to logistically handle more than one or two teams fighting for your corporation at once. Getting PC past the very best 16 available to fight their 16 very best is vital to expanding the number of players involved in PC. Perhaps having 8 v 8 battles happen quickly upon attacking a district, providing some sort of tactical advantage in the main assault/defense on the main timer? I don't want it PS2 style, wake up and everything is gone style but having more spontaneity would be better than 24-48 hr lead times. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5523	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:39:00 - [34] - Quote Should be noted, that something like I've mentioned above has always been frowned upon by more elite mercenary style corps, but it sounds like these war barges will allow organizations like those to potentially thrive without concerning themselves with land ownership. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5523	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:44:00 - [35] - Quote Brush Master wrote: I have to agree that a Skirmish 3.0 needs to be focused on if you are able to make it happen. Skirmish 1.0 actually had a moving MCC with real attack and defense mechanics. If we are upgrading a warbarge, then it makes sense that you can build one up to make it last longer, move faster, etc. On the other side, if you own a district, being able to upgrade your district base has appeal. Agreed, but if upgrading districts at this stage happened it may lock everything down. I think they should be careful until there's more participation in PC. All these things sound great, but I can't help thinking about AE or TP having 40 districts fully upgraded with beast mode warbarges. Without the current timer mechanics being changed up these things will seemingly lead to more thorough ass whippings by small elite groups. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4023	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:45:00 - [36] - Quote It seems like it would make much more sense for Warbarges to be a corp owned asset and have these personal bonuses be something that applies to your merc quarters. When you join a corporation you then can move your merc quarters aboard the corp-owned barge. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 564	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:58:00 - [37] - Quote Could this lead to interconnected merc quarters? Because currently I'm a solo player, but I'd create a corp and fill it with people if we could have a warbarge where we could meet up and chat and deploy together, maybe with some rooms for minigames or a firing range. And nova knife duels, because why the hell not? By the way, could those details be added to the Trello site? The headlines aren't exactly self-explanatory.
BursegSardaukar Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 353	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:00:00 - [38] - Quote Will these war barges be visible EVE side? Are they both offensive and defense? Will it be possible to hinder/help them in space? Will it be possible for an EVE ship to act as an interim war barge on a district and provide bonuses? CEO of General Tso's Alliance. Winner of Hulkageddon IV. Contact me on my EVE character: Burseg Sardaukar
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14059	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:02:00 - [39] - Quote Will we actually get to walk around our warbarges, or will it be an imaginary asset that we own? lol Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 365	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:07:00 - [40] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Corbina Ninja wrote: simple trading is too simple but better than nothing Looks like CCP is going to introduce one the easiest way to scam in New Eden. My thoughts exactly. If they don't put in a confirm feature like most other games... it will just lead to tons of support tickets and threads on this forum black listing scammers. http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Trading This short Runscape wiki explains it WITH PICTURES!!! Seriously CCP, spend some time and get this right. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/

Kain Spero Goonfeet 4029	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:10:00 - [41] - Quote One question I have is will you be able to trade BPOs, Boosters, and Salvage boxes? Are certain items going to be untradeable? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5523	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:10:00 - [42] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: It seems like it would make much more sense for Warbarges to be a corp owned asset and have these personal bonuses be something that applies to your merc quarters. When you join a corporation you then can move your merc quarters aboard the corp-owned barge. Yeah, I didn't catch the personnel warbarge part. This only leads to an even smaller amount of players in PC. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2728	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:13:00 - [43] - Quote Overall I think this is really exciting. I had a few thoughts on particular points. IGÇÖd like to see the GÇ£corporation rankGÇ¥ stat be designed to incentivise using more of your players in PC than just your top 16 (and especially not ringers from other corps). That should still be possible, but a corp that consistently fielded many different members (excluding alts) should get significantly more benefits than one that only uses the same top players. This has several benefits: 1. It reduces burnout with PC and DUST in general, 2. Corps will likely try to include a handful of less experienced players in each PC, and these players will get a lot of intense, baptism-by-fire training, 3. It should help new player retention as they will be able to have opportunities to participate in what is supposed to be the pinnacle of DUST 514 combat. 4. It will make PC less elitist, and will probably reduce frustration/resentment between GÇ£PC playersGÇ¥ and everyone else in the corp (not all corps are like this, but IGÇÖve seen this in the past). 5. I think it will increase corp cohesion which should help make DUST more fun, less drama, and ultimately foster better long-term player retention. I have a few ideas on how to improve recruitment. The first is to sell advertising space on the initial loading screen to corps for AUR. Corps would create an image file with the appropriate resolution and submit it to CCP for approval (obviously no profanity, explicit images etc.). Once approved, these could be posted on the initial loading screens. There are a lot of different ways for this to be priced (auction, or based or priced based on the player rank of those who are viewing it, perhaps just a fixed price to start). The next idea is to have the option for corps register as GÇ£new player friendlyGÇ¥ or something like that. These corps would have certain limitations about scamming and such. As a reward, these corps would be featured prominently in the corp finder, or perhaps in their own prominent section. The corp finder should display number of players, number of active players, tax rate, a description, etc. in an easy to compare table. Recruiting new players should be generously rewarded in the proposed system without being exploitable with alts. ISK-efficiency (per match, or per death) needs to be a prominent individual/corporate statistic. I have no idea why this is taking so long to implement. I would think this would be pretty easy to code and should make a significant positive impact by disincentivizing PRO stomping, without rigid limitations on gear. Displaying your ISK efficiency stat on the EOM leaderboards should really help new players have a stat next to their name that looks good. Sure you may have gone 4 kills, 10 deaths, and 6 assists, but you were 2nd place in ISK efficiency. That should help keep new players around and reduce the feelings of being discouraged. By the way, ISK-efficiency should take into account the ISK value of things like BPOs and AUR gear, so you still get credit for killing and dying using them. This is such an easy thing that would make a significant difference. Please try to get this in ASAP. Along those lines, add assists to the K/D column in the EoM leaderboard screen: K/D/A. This would be another easy change that would help recognize playersGÇÖ contributions (especially true for players with shield-bonused weapons and for new players). Best PvE idea ever!
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 366	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:15:00 - [44] - Quote Also... CCP Punkturis is asking for Corp Interface suggestions for Eve here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5310914 and her tweet: https://twitter.com/CCP_Punkturis/status/544790987437268992 I would really like to see some way for a Dust Character CEO to apply to Eve Corps, and Eve Corps able to at least view the Dust wallet. I understand the separation of the economies. Just looking for more oversight options. As of right now, an EVE CEO > Dust CEO drastically. Would like to see that disparity gap in abilities closed a bit as it would certainly help Dust Corps stay viable and healthy. Dust Corp hangars would be a huge leap in that direction. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14059	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:16:00 - [45] - Quote I would suggest to require moving your warbarge to above the district before you can initiate attack, and have that move take time depending on distance. Battles shouldn't happen from thin air, you should be required to move your forces. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 366	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:21:00 - [46] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I would suggest to require moving your warbarge to above the district before you can initiate attack, and have that move take time depending on distance. Battles shouldn't happen from thin air, you should be required to move your forces. They scrapped so much of those mechanics that they envisioned and shared with us sadly... but I agree with you. "One Universe, One War" ... is but a memory now... http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5957	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:23:00 - [47] - Quote I personally think the Corp should own the barge, and the individual players customize their personal setups, armories, equipment manufacturing, etc. But I think that the barge should be a corp asset, not everyone gets a barge. And I most certainly think that making them corp assets might encourage people to get their asses into an actual corp rather than an NPC corp forever EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 366	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:24:00 - [48] - Quote Deleted. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4029	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:28:00 - [49] - Quote STYLIE77 wrote: Cat Merc wrote: I would suggest to require moving your warbarge to above the district before you can initiate attack, and have that move take time depending on distance. Battles shouldn't happen from thin air, you should be required to move your forces. They scrapped so much of those mechanics that they envisioned and shared with us sadly... but I agree with you. "One Universe, One War" ... is but a memory now... Even if the barge "moves" it doesn't have to be an Eve asset, which is off the table right now from everything I can tell and that's okay. A barge really should be corp owned and have a location on the star map at the very least. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5525	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:28:00 - [50] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I personally think the Corp should own the barge, and the individual players customize their personal setups, armories, equipment manufacturing, etc. But I think that the barge should be a corp asset, not everyone gets a barge. And I most certainly think that making them corp assets might encourage people to get their asses into an actual corp rather than an NPC corp forever Yes, yes, yes. Creating another ISK and SP sink probably cuts down on the number of players who play PC now. I hope this point becomes clear before they release this. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.

Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5533	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:33:00 - [51] - Quote BursegSardaukar wrote: Will these war barges be visible EVE side? Are they both offensive and defense? Will it be possible to hinder/help them in space? Will it be possible for an EVE ship to act as an interim war barge on a district and provide bonuses? THANK YOU! I was thinking I'd get all the way to the end of this thread without somebody asking that. Is the basic idea here that New Eden is now going to be full of these massive warships that can move around as they please and all of us in EVE can do NOTHING about it? Part of why I put my EVE characters in each Dust Corporation I joined was because PC had an EVE element to it, moreso than Faction Warfare. I still remember EVE Vegas from last year where it was mentioned that War Barges would eventually be actual ships flown by EVE player, thus creating a far deeper tie between the players of both. Is this gone now? Have you guys actually decided that the EVE link was a mistake and you won't expand it any further? I really hope the idea of a unified New Eden hasn't been forgotten. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 366	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:33:00 - [52] - Quote BursegSardaukar wrote: Will these war barges be visible EVE side? Are they both offensive and defense? Will it be possible to hinder/help them in space? Will it be possible for an EVE ship to act as an interim war barge on a district and provide bonuses? CCP went back and forth on the subject of Warbarges for some time. They wanted to make them invulnerable to Eve attack, then they talked of timers like a POS, the argument was made that vulnerable Warbages wouldn't last long in Eve as all the pilots would pwn them just because. Then it was pushed back and forgotten. Glad to see Rat looking at them again, no matter what the use tactically... as a Corp Social Asset it still holds a lot of value. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4034	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:41:00 - [53] - Quote Something that I really hope doesn't get missed is adding an ability to transfer a district from one corp to another outside of combat. It's something that has been missing from this game for a long time. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5530	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:43:00 - [54] - Quote In my opinion making these attackable in Eve would be a TERRIBLE idea. There's just not enough interest overall for there to be the type of Eve support necessary to protect such assets. You'd end up needing every single Dust interested Eve pilot fighting together to make PC possible. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 5902	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:45:00 - [55] - Quote Am I the only one concerned about the RDV pilot delivering my MCC to battle? MOAR Ladders
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 284	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:45:00 - [56] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I would suggest to require moving your warbarge to above the district before you can initiate attack, and have that move take time depending on distance. Battles shouldn't happen from thin air, you should be required to move your forces. 1. PC districts are attacked and then the timer counts down which can be 1 day and 12hrs and 37min to battle 2. For all you know that is how long it takes to organize the clones in the warbarge and move to the attacking district
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4034	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:46:00 - [57] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: In my opinion making these attackable in Eve would be a TERRIBLE idea. There's just not enough interest overall for there to be the type of Eve support necessary to protect such assets. You'd end up needing every single Dust interested Eve pilot fighting together to make PC possible. Totally agree with this point in the initial phase. Later on this could be revisited I'm sure. Also, speaking barges why not instead of just warbarge modules have modules for districts as well (in addition to the very hamfisted surface infastructure bonuses)? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2161	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:47:00 - [58] - Quote Just glad that you good people have a clearer idea of what some of the terms in the roadmap Trello now mean. One of the things I'm most looking forward to is a greater sense of being in a Corporation that these features should help usher in. It's always been my hope that a stronger feeling of brotherhood, for lack of a better term, be created and easily maintained by CEO and directors. One of my biggest annoyances about the PC mechanic as it was and still is at the moment, is the fact it was largely an elite few fighting for their own gain and not contributing to the larger corperation membership. Stronger corps in the game are the silver bullet when it comes to player retention. New UI such as corp adverts and finders should help tell new players about player run corps and the benefits they have over the NPC ones. I know I'm speaking for the rest of the CPM when I say we're looking forward to your feedback on all this. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4128	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:52:00 - [59] - Quote Rattati, I got the impression that you intend the "Warbarge Command" skill to be something that the CEO trains in order to upgrade the power umbrella of a corp's War Barge Fleet as a whole. As you may know, many CEOs run their corporation through an EVE alt due to EVE's superior Corporate Management interface. Will this skill be available to EVE characters with all of the appropriate controls? Or can a corporation designate a specific Dust character from which the system reads the Warbarge Command skill level? The reason I ask is that many CEOs will not be happy if they are forced to re-train Corporation Management skills on a Dust character as well as sacrifice the EVE interface, solely to gain the benefit from the Warbarge Command skill. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5531	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:53:00 - [60] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Just glad that you good people have a clearer idea of what some of the terms in the roadmap Trello now mean. One of the things I'm most looking forward to is a greater sense of being in a Corporation that these features should help usher in. It's always been my hope that a stronger feeling of brotherhood, for lack of a better term, be created and easily maintained by CEO and directors. One of my biggest annoyances about the PC mechanic as it was and still is at the moment, is the fact it was largely an elite few fighting for their own gain and not contributing to the larger corperation membership. Stronger corps in the game are the silver bullet when it comes to player retention. New UI such as corp adverts and finders should help tell new players about player run corps and the benefits they have over the NPC ones. I know I'm speaking for the rest of the CPM when I say we're looking forward to your feedback on all this. Perhaps it hasn't come out yet, but the mechanics holding back PC for the longest don't appear to be changing. If anything these additions in my opinion take some of the more casual players out of PC. As much as I get to play PC currently due to RL stuff I don't see myself diverting my skill queue to personal warbarge and and associated skills. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.

Kain Spero Goonfeet 4038	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:55:00 - [61] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Just glad that you good people have a clearer idea of what some of the terms in the roadmap Trello now mean. One of the things I'm most looking forward to is a greater sense of being in a Corporation that these features should help usher in. It's always been my hope that a stronger feeling of brotherhood, for lack of a better term, be created and easily maintained by CEO and directors. One of my biggest annoyances about the PC mechanic as it was and still is at the moment, is the fact it was largely an elite few fighting for their own gain and not contributing to the larger corperation membership. Stronger corps in the game are the silver bullet when it comes to player retention. New UI such as corp adverts and finders should help tell new players about player run corps and the benefits they have over the NPC ones. I know I'm speaking for the rest of the CPM when I say we're looking forward to your feedback on all this. At the same time talent pooling is a very real and problematic part of planetary conquest even today. One of my concerns is that by giving 'corp-wide' bonuses to compel people into corps you could very well end up with a stronger incentive for the 'elite' to all just aggregate into one super corp. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5532	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:57:00 - [62] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Cat Merc wrote: I would suggest to require moving your warbarge to above the district before you can initiate attack, and have that move take time depending on distance. Battles shouldn't happen from thin air, you should be required to move your forces. 1. PC districts are attacked and then the timer counts down which can be 1 day and 12hrs and 37min to battle 2. For all you know that is how long it takes to organize the clones in the warbarge and move to the attacking district Adding more complexity to attacks is not a good idea in my opinion. We want more people in PC. It can get more complex as it evolves. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
BursegSardaukar Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 355	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:03:00 - [63] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: In my opinion making these attackable in Eve would be a TERRIBLE idea. There's just not enough interest overall for there to be the type of Eve support necessary to protect such assets. You'd end up needing every single Dust interested Eve pilot fighting together to make PC possible. If you give the things the HP of a POCO, and all attacking it will do is put it into reinforced (offline bonuses), it will provide an option of EVE-side of Dust/EVE Alliance to disrupt operations, but not making it "worth it" for random douches to be interested. Frankly, even I wouldn't grind that HP and I'm the rare breed that actually cares about EVE/Dust support. But at least there's a actual object that expands on the connection between games. CEO of General Tso's Alliance. Winner of Hulkageddon IV. Contact me on my EVE character: Burseg Sardaukar
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5532	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:04:00 - [64] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Just glad that you good people have a clearer idea of what some of the terms in the roadmap Trello now mean. One of the things I'm most looking forward to is a greater sense of being in a Corporation that these features should help usher in. It's always been my hope that a stronger feeling of brotherhood, for lack of a better term, be created and easily maintained by CEO and directors. One of my biggest annoyances about the PC mechanic as it was and still is at the moment, is the fact it was largely an elite few fighting for their own gain and not contributing to the larger corperation membership. Stronger corps in the game are the silver bullet when it comes to player retention. New UI such as corp adverts and finders should help tell new players about player run corps and the benefits they have over the NPC ones. I know I'm speaking for the rest of the CPM when I say we're looking forward to your feedback on all this. At the same time talent pooling is a very real and problematic part of planetary conquest even today. One of my concerns is that by giving 'corp-wide' bonuses to compel people into corps you could very well end up with a stronger incentive for the 'elite' to all just aggregate into one super corp. This is easily addressed by making battles spin up sooner. Super corps would find it a better idea to focus on dominating smaller swaths of territory. In my view, corporate rankings would increase dramatically with winning percentage. Leading to huge rewards by maintaining the amount of land relative to what they could respond to quickly enough to keep winning. This would necessitate a UI for team/platoon deploy though. Imagine being able to team deploy FW, your corp getting attacked. You have 20-30 minutes. You simply finish the battle and take that team to defend your district. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5532	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:05:00 - [65] - Quote BursegSardaukar wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: In my opinion making these attackable in Eve would be a TERRIBLE idea. There's just not enough interest overall for there to be the type of Eve support necessary to protect such assets. You'd end up needing every single Dust interested Eve pilot fighting together to make PC possible. If you give the things the HP of a POCO, and all attacking it will do is put it into reinforced (offline bonuses), it will provide an option of EVE-side of Dust/EVE Alliance to disrupt operations, but not making it "worth it" for random douches to be interested. Frankly, even I wouldn't grind that HP and I'm the rare breed that actually cares about EVE/Dust support. But at least there's a actual object that expands on the connection between games. I do like the idea of it, but I think that needs to happen further down the line. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2164	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:17:00 - [66] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: At the same time talent pooling is a very real and problematic part of planetary conquest even today. One of my concerns is that by giving 'corp-wide' bonuses to compel people into corps you could very well end up with a stronger incentive for the 'elite' to all just aggregate into one super corp. That is a shared concern. But what has been described so far is very much a generalisation of the warbarge concept. There is more depth to it but it's for CCP to speak more to that when they're ready. Let me put it this way, my general dissatisfaction with the mechanic and the increasingly large amounts of player burnout that PC brought with it, is what caused me to pull D-UNI out of it. I'm actually considering a return to Molden Heath once this all goes live because I believe it will benefit player retention and increase the number of corps fighting PC, not diminish it. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4040	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:34:00 - [67] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Kain Spero wrote: At the same time talent pooling is a very real and problematic part of planetary conquest even today. One of my concerns is that by giving 'corp-wide' bonuses to compel people into corps you could very well end up with a stronger incentive for the 'elite' to all just aggregate into one super corp. That is a shared concern. But what has been described so far is very much a generalisation of the warbarge concept. There is more depth to it but it's for CCP to speak more to that when they're ready. Let me put it this way, my general dissatisfaction with the mechanic and the increasingly large amounts of player burnout that PC brought with it, is what caused me to pull D-UNI out of it. I'm actually considering a return to Molden Heath once this all goes live because I believe it will benefit player retention and increase the number of corps fighting PC, not diminish it. Keep what you kill sounds like a good plan, but if CCP doesn't address clones being your source of income and your tool of war you will end up with a lot of the same problems. Also, if these barges don't have a location on the map then how does that address force projection? Modifying clone loss mechanics for districts just forces everyone to break out a spreadsheet for when they are going to launch attacks. CCP should really look at the barge being what you use to launch attacks unless you are fighting from district to district on the same planet. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4128	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:39:00 - [68] - Quote Because it's a half day at work and I'm bored... Players produce their own War Barge. When doing so, all generated WPs are pooled within the corporation. Personal War Barge can be fit with personal bonuses. Number of Bonuses dictated by the current Warbarge rank. Warbarge rank determined by personal WP production each week. Sufficient WP production will raise rank, insufficient production will lower rank. Min Level 0, Max Level 5. Corporations have a central Warbarge Commando structure which can be fitted with modules, each of which offers a bonus to all mercs with an active War Barge. WPs are then spent to cycle the modules on the structure, with the WP cost being a function of the number of Active Warbarges it is affecting within the corp. Since bonuses are based on Warbarge Command modules, the max amount of bonuses possible is capped. Small corps with high activity will be allowed to have high bonuses due to high WP production with lower player count, yeilding in cheaper bonus cycles. Large corps with inactive players will not be penalized due to inactive players, as cost and benefit is based on active WarBarges. Max number of bonuses active at once, so ultimate benefit is capped, meaning that after a point, a larger Corporation offers little tangible benefit in terms of bonuses. Constant actvity is required to produce enough WP to keep bonuses running. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2420	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:46:00 - [69] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: It seems like it would make much more sense for Warbarges to be a corp owned asset and have these personal bonuses be something that applies to your merc quarters. When you join a corporation you then can move your merc quarters aboard the corp-owned barge. I'm thinking one of the factors strongly motivating CCP's warbarge proposal is to have the barges act as a gate on alt corps/locking and and other PC shenanigans from the past. Corp-owned warbarges wouldn't do that. I don't necessarily agree with CCP's approach here, but i can see the attraction. PSN: RationalSpark
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4133	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:03:00 - [70] - Quote I'd also like to note that the Warbarge Command Structure would remain a functioning Clone Production facility. While I think its fine that the structure produce a small amount of clones constantly, majority of Clone Production should come from Structure Module cycles. That is to say that a corporation must be active to generate sufficient WP to build an army, and discourage very small corps from being able to launch attack after attack solely based off of their wallets. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Zaria Min Deir OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 961	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:37:00 - [71] - Quote While I agree that a metric to measure actual activity would be very useful for removing, at least somewhat , blatant alt corporations and related shenanigans from planetary conquest, for what it's worth. I would entreat you to not confuse the current loyalty rank system with such a metric. Implementing a minimum required activity level for a corporation to enter PC will fail massively as a way to say, stop people from creating alt corporations to lock districts with, if the mechanic can be easily spoofed by just spending a handful of aurum... Particularly when, with the implementation of simple trading, any AUR spent on items on even a completely throw away alt isn't even wasted. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4044	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:44:00 - [72] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: While I agree that a metric to measure actual activity would be very useful for removing, at least somewhat , blatant alt corporations and related shenanigans from planetary conquest, for what it's worth. I would entreat you to not confuse the current loyalty rank system with such a metric. Implementing a minimum required activity level for a corporation to enter PC will fail massively as a way to say, stop people from creating alt corporations to lock districts with, if the mechanic can be easily spoofed by just spending a handful of aurum... Particularly when, with the implementation of simple trading, any AUR spent on items on even a completely throw away alt isn't even wasted. Couldn't agree more with this. And trying to lock items to a character would be a crappy way to prevent something like this. If you are going to have trading let it be open. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4137	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:46:00 - [73] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: While I agree that a metric to measure actual activity would be very useful for removing, at least somewhat , blatant alt corporations and related shenanigans from planetary conquest, for what it's worth. I would entreat you to not confuse the current loyalty rank system with such a metric. Implementing a minimum required activity level for a corporation to enter PC will fail massively as a way to say, stop people from creating alt corporations to lock districts with, if the mechanic can be easily spoofed by just spending a handful of aurum... Particularly when, with the implementation of simple trading, any AUR spent on items on even a completely throw away alt isn't even wasted. Completely agree. Because AUR so heavily affects Loyalty Rank, you're creating a system where not only does spending AUR increase ISK payouts and SP production passively (Which is....not ideal, but fairly harmless) but also affecting PC directly. I would avoid using the Loyalty Rank for ANYTHING like its the damn plague. It's a fun feature, but keep its influence out of core systems. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 20503	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:55:00 - [74] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. This may be done through the introduction of Corporation Rank as the defining metric for Corporation eligibility and power. Wait. Loyalty ranks are the defining metric of corporation power? I seriously hope this is not the case. Loyalty ranks are based almost entirely on the amount of AUR you've purchased. This is directly linking strength to how much money you've spent on the game. Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
Zaria Min Deir OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 963	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:11:00 - [75] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. This may be done through the introduction of Corporation Rank as the defining metric for Corporation eligibility and power. Wait. Loyalty ranks are the defining metric of corporation power? I seriously hope this is not the case. Loyalty ranks are based almost entirely on the amount of AUR you've purchased. This is directly linking strength to how much money you've spent on the game. And this is pretty much the reason why "Loyalty" Ranks, as they are, should not be involved into any actual meaningful mechanic in the game. Some of us did raise concerns over amounts of aurum spent being (intentionally) cofused with activity levels in the first place... Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5534	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:17:00 - [76] - Quote STYLIE77 wrote: BursegSardaukar wrote: Will these war barges be visible EVE side? Are they both offensive and defense? Will it be possible to hinder/help them in space? Will it be possible for an EVE ship to act as an interim war barge on a district and provide bonuses? CCP went back and forth on the subject of Warbarges for some time. They wanted to make them invulnerable to Eve attack, then they talked of timers like a POS, the argument was made that vulnerable Warbages wouldn't last long in Eve as all the pilots would pwn them just because. Then it was pushed back and forgotten. Glad to see Rat looking at them again, no matter what the use tactically... as a Corp Social Asset it still holds a lot of value. That wouldn't be the case because they said War Barges would be on the same scale as the Orca, which can be docked. You can't blow something up while it's docked in a station. Also, the use of War Barges would provide more incentive for EVE pilots to be involved in Planetary Conquest. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4144	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:34:00 - [77] - Quote While I would love to see War Barges be something that EVE players can interact with, I think it is unnecessary at this point in the design phase. We need War Barges to work properly before we let people blow them up, you know? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
BL4CKST4R Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 3502	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:37:00 - [78] - Quote What happened to legion? Dust on the ps4/pc should be on the road map if legion fell through the cracks.. supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2167	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:39:00 - [79] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. This may be done through the introduction of Corporation Rank as the defining metric for Corporation eligibility and power. Wait. Loyalty ranks are the defining metric of corporation power? I seriously hope this is not the case. Loyalty ranks are based almost entirely on the amount of AUR you've purchased. This is directly linking strength to how much money you've spent on the game. And this is pretty much the reason why "Loyalty" Ranks, as they are, should not be involved into any actual meaningful mechanic in the game. Some of us did raise concerns over amounts of aurum spent being (intentionally) cofused with activity levels in the first place... Ok, at the risk of skirting over the lines of NDA, I feel I should point out now to stop further confusion and prevent unnecessary angst that the term 'Loyalty Ranks' is a genaric term and shouldn't be assumed to be the same as what is already in the game. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5536	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:40:00 - [80] - Quote It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5536	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:43:00 - [81] - Quote BL4CKST4R wrote: What happened to legion? Dust on the ps4/pc should be on the road map if legion fell through the cracks.. It's easier to operate within the confines of Dust if you just assume Legion isn't happening. If Dust keeps making money you'd have to assume it'll move on to newer hardware. It helps me anyway. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
BursegSardaukar Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 358	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:43:00 - [82] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". More than 16v16 matches CEO of General Tso's Alliance. Winner of Hulkageddon IV. Contact me on my EVE character: Burseg Sardaukar
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5536	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:47:00 - [83] - Quote BursegSardaukar wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". More than 16v16 matches Not sure if that alone would push those not currently involved to jump into the mix plus I'm highly skeptical of the game performing well on this hardware with any additional players per match. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
BursegSardaukar Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 359	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:59:00 - [84] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: BursegSardaukar wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". More than 16v16 matches Not sure if that alone would push those not currently involved to jump into the mix plus I'm highly skeptical of the game performing well on this hardware with any additional players per match. Yea, the PS3's would probably melt or the game would need TiDi, lol. However, it would promote mass recruitment, or, rather, push people to #sMERGE corps. ;) CEO of General Tso's Alliance. Winner of Hulkageddon IV. Contact me on my EVE character: Burseg Sardaukar
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5539	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:08:00 - [85] - Quote BursegSardaukar wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: BursegSardaukar wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". More than 16v16 matches Not sure if that alone would push those not currently involved to jump into the mix plus I'm highly skeptical of the game performing well on this hardware with any additional players per match. Yea, the PS3's would probably melt or the game would need TiDi, lol. However, it would promote mass recruitment, or, rather, push people to #sMERGE corps. ;) Just like we were talking about on Skype. They could easily make it so small elite groups can still crush folks and get rich without crowding out >90% of the playerbase. Getting people in corps and involved socially is a much bigger hook than getting face stomped in pubs deploying solo over and over again. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18080	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:09:00 - [86] - Quote @Community Another thing I strongly encourage the playerbase to do is to also come up with their own ideas as well revolving around the base concepts of these ideas. here is a foundation there time to build on it has not happened yet it is still mostly all on paper and you guys have the chance to heavily influence that. For example the war barge does not have to be so tied down into PC that it cannot be an asset enjoyed elsewhere. I mean what if the personal ship doesn't start out as a barge but is more like the titan of eve; the highest end personal goal you can set for yourself being a daunting task to upgrade to that size? @CCP Rattati Change Corp Loyalty into Corp Standings. This is more eve sensical and lowers confusion hopefully. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2420	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:21:00 - [87] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: While I agree that a metric to measure actual activity would be very useful for removing, at least somewhat , blatant alt corporations and related shenanigans from planetary conquest, for what it's worth. I would entreat you to not confuse the current loyalty rank system with such a metric. Implementing a minimum required activity level for a corporation to enter PC will fail massively as a way to say, stop people from creating alt corporations to lock districts with, if the mechanic can be easily spoofed by just spending a handful of aurum... Particularly when, with the implementation of simple trading, any AUR spent on items on even a completely throw away alt isn't even wasted. Agree. Loyalty rank is the wrong metric. PSN: RationalSpark
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2420	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:26:00 - [88] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: While I would love to see War Barges be something that EVE players can interact with, I think it is unnecessary at this point in the design phase. We need War Barges to work properly before we let people blow them up, you know? Agree. At this point in DUST's developement, warbareges should be thought of as an abstract game mechanic. It is totally unrealistic(and undesireable) to implement them in EVE. PSN: RationalSpark
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2614	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:57:00 - [89] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players Phase One We will allow players to build and upgrade their personal Warbarges, as you are no mere grunts now. These huge warships become the center of your powerbase. You will be able to upgrade the Warbarge itself, and invest in valuable modules for the warbarge, that provide the player bonuses, and upgrade the modules as well. The first feedback threads will be about these modules and their bonuses, so better put your thinking caps on. Empowering the player to invest in something meaningful and persistent is a very exciting concept and is necessary as the foundation for further development. About time this will be implemented. Phase Two We want to allow Corporations to be measured on their collective Warbarge Fleets. The Corporation will then be able to invest in power structure/umbrella that either increases the power of each individual Warbarge module or grants brand new bonuses to the Corporation, tentatively called Warbarge Command. Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. This may be done through the introduction of Corporation Rank as the defining metric for Corporation eligibility and power. The lynchpin to this step is the introduction of the Warbarge Clone Vats Module (name TBD) where Clonepacks can be built with regular intervals, allowing Corporations without Districts to launch relatively risk free attacks on Districts. These attacks should be initiated from a list of Districts, displaying Timers, Clones, Corporation and other useful statistics and not from the Starmap itself. Finally, we are working on a different reward method for Planetary Conquest, primarily based on the simple premis of GÇ£you get what you destroyedGÇ¥. Combined with a minimum Corporation Rank to initiate attacks, we may see the end of district-locking and exploits in 2015. We may also reduce the available Timers and/or set Districts to fixed Timers that canGÇÖt be changed. When you say fleets, does that mean a corp can own more than one warbarge? Going with that, will a corp need multiple barges to attack multiple districts, or would it be one barge per planet? Phase Three This step would be to combine Warbarge Fleets and ownership of Districts, making Districts the crux of any powerful Corporation. Does not compute in my brain. Not saying you wrote it bad, I just don't get it. Phase Four Introduce a secondary reason to claim, own and harvest Districts by introducing a resource in New Eden, only found and claimed by DUST Mercenaries. Launching attacks on other Corporation Warbarges is an exciting concept but not a priority to discuss now. Allowing Corporations to host their own challenge matches is also an intriguing concept. And thatGÇÖs all we can share on our vision for Planetary Conquest at the moment. Does that literally mean fighting inside a warbarge? I know that's probably more than a year down the road from today, but if so, that would be an awesome experience. It could be done like Skirmish 1.0, wherein the attacking team has to advance through the ship, taking the barracks, engineering, intelligence, and helm, probably also hacking CRUs along the way, but once those main areas are captured, defenders can't get them back. Essentially attackers take them offline, needing a big engineering team to repair them. Reintroduction of removed content Vehicles please User Experience Market Experience and Fitting That may mean tweaks to the Market and Fitting, such as recently adding the Scanning Attributes to the fitting screen, Displaying Metalevels etc. These could be the GÇ£restock toGÇ¥ function, better sorting, more information etc. There's the 3000m scanning range bug to fix. Simple Trading This is of course the long wanted feature of Player to Player trading. The minimum feature is basically click an Item in Assets, and select GÇ£send item toGÇ¥ and GÇ£QTYGÇ¥ from the context UI. Will this be done with gifting, trading items for items, items for ISK, possibly AUR? I have a bunch of officer weapons I'm not going to skill into, and I wouldn't mind getting rid of them for a good value. But if vehicles are worth it, I'll be getting rid of them all to go full pilot. Battle Quality Under this Story we have multiple things we want to iterate on, but primarily matchmaking/academy and minimizing player downtime. One of the iterations we are actively working on is GÇ£donGÇÖt put me in battles that are effectively overGÇ¥. Battles that are done, yes. The battle academy needs to be extended to at least 25k WP, preferably 50k. The new players we're getting are a poor bunch, and it seems like Dust is their very first shooter, having no experience with any others. Recruiting Tools We have set up three main features, the Corp Finder where Corporations advertise themselves, the Merc Finder where Mercenaries advertise themselves, and New Player Finder where CEOGÇÖs and Recruiters can find and invite Players that are in NPC corps, with an opt-out for Players to be in that list. We will try to develop each of them in an order that makes sense technically. This is good. Achievements/Medals/Merits for both Players and Corporations are also ranked high on the Roadmap for us to work on. This is kinda lame, as it could get the game closer to a Call of Duty experience. I never saw anybody ask for the loyalty ranks, especially putting what rank they are in the killfeed. The biggest problem with that is that you only turn off your own loyalty rank, instead of for everybody. It adds unnecessary clutter, when you need to quickly see who was killed with what. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5118	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:01:00 - [90] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". That is a key goal of allowing people to generate clone packs through tho system. To reduce the entry barrier significantly. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2614	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:01:00 - [91] - Quote nicholas73 wrote: Looks interesting, looking forward to see how it will work out. Though I am also afraid of the hundreds of other stuff that might break when this launches, please properly QA the stuff before launching it. As in putting it up on the test server with a bunch of corps will all their SP to let us see what it's like and pick out any bugs. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 20507	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:03:00 - [92] - Quote The only way for Loyalty Rank to be a sensible metric is for it to be based on actual activity and not the amount of money spent. Otherwise, money will directly translate into corporate strength. Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5547	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:15:00 - [93] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". That is a key goal of allowing people to generate clone packs through tho system. To reduce the entry barrier significantly. But one of the biggest complaints from those that have tried PC is the wait around for 30 minutes and not get chosen. A fight or two every other day isn't going to change much. On a given scale it'll still be the best 16 vs the best 16. It won't put any strain on the status quo. Timers, timers, timers. Have I mentioned that timers are one of the biggest things holding PC back? Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
The-Errorist 933	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:29:00 - [94] - Quote I would first want you guys to fix the logis like you said you would, but chickened out. As for pillars for the PC changes, sure they look nice, but its still gonna be the same old skirmish battles. Please make Skirmish 3.0 a priority for FW and PC like so many of us suggested in the past. On a side note, have you seen how awesome Hawken's siege mode is? After you make skirmish 3.0 happen, can consider making a mode similar to that? Like STYLIE77 said, the corp management tools in dust are sorely lacking; one big issue is that dust CEOs can't form/apply to alliances. Also there should be an easier way to see one's own corp roles in the My Corp menu. Iron Wolf Saber wrote: @Community ... For example the war barge does not have to be so tied down into PC that it cannot be an asset enjoyed elsewhere. I mean what if the personal ship doesn't start out as a barge but is more like the titan of eve; the highest end personal goal you can set for yourself being a daunting task to upgrade to that size? ... @CCP Rattati Change Corp Loyalty into Corp Standings. This is more eve sensical and lowers confusion hopefully. Having Corp Loyalty renamed to Corp Standings does sound like a nice change. Having these war assets start out small and have applications outside of PC would be cool. After players build and or upgrade their personal warbarges, they should be able to donate it to the Corp's assets, and that should increase the individual's standing with their corp. Those standings should control how much bonuses one gets from being in that corp. The number of warbarges and the Warbarge Command modules fitted on them should also influence how much bonuses are given at each corp standing. Progressing through the corp standings should be similar to loyalty ranks except for the spending AUR part. EDIT: Warbarges should also give some kind of bonuses to EVE players too and they should have some way to increase production of warbarges (maybe making them themselves?) or something else that benefits corps besides being able to drop OBs in PC. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5119	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:38:00 - [95] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Timers, timers, timers. Have I mentioned that timers are one of the biggest things holding PC back? I understand you believe that. It doesn't mean you're right. Timers are critical for allowing players accomplishments to mean something, and not requiring the people managing for their corp to have to eat, sleep, and breathe the game 24/7. That being said, some reasonable adjustments to timers are well-warranted, and I heavily advocate making it impossible to squat 50 districts in the 1200 UTC timer. Thor Odinson42 wrote: But one of the biggest complaints from those that have tried PC is the wait around for 30 minutes and not get chosen. A fight or two every other day isn't going to change much. On a given scale it'll still be the best 16 vs the best 16. It won't put any strain on the status quo. I disagree. A lot more corps being able to afford a lot more clone packs regularly means holding districts DOES become a lot more work. There will be a lot more corps in play, and a lot more battles on the schedule. The same 16 people won't be able to be in every match all the time, especially since this system should help reduce alt corp locking tactics as well. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5970	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:41:00 - [96] - Quote Make raids (non-conquering strikes on districts) a thing. that way a corp can hotdrop a district for no other reason than to shoot people and of course to harvest this nebulous nanotechnetium from their land, rob the local townsfolk for ISK after subduing the natives then peace out and go back to being bastards elsewhere. I want to be a reaver, not the gorram Roman Empire. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5120	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:43:00 - [97] - Quote Generic commentary on the thread: Very glad this is out here now, I hope everyone has a lot of ideas and feedback on it. I saw a few people saying the barge should be a corp asset rather than a personal one. Some of us on the CPM lean that way as well, your feedback is surely valued on that topic. This is all high level stuff, and there's lots of room for tweaks to the system. And remember that this is an iterative process, so parts that don't work well can be tweaked and adjusted down the line. A few people wanted to know why the CPM didn't openly discuss our own proposal for PC. One of the major reasons for that was because our documents and CCP's documents were extremely similar. Both CCP Rattati and the CPM had an extremely similar view of what the key points were to making Planetary Conquest worthwhile, interesting, and exciting. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5120	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:45:00 - [98] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Make raids (non-conquering strikes on districts) a thing. that way a corp can hotdrop a district for no other reason than to shoot people and of course to harvest this nebulous nanotechnetium from their land, rob the local townsfolk for ISK after subduing the natives then peace out and go back to being bastards elsewhere. This is definitely something we discussed, and I'd like to see. Also, non-conquering matches are the realm of thing where it may be easy to do more short-notice battles for ISK. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14065	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:45:00 - [99] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Timers, timers, timers. Have I mentioned that timers are one of the biggest things holding PC back? I understand you believe that. It doesn't mean you're right. Timers are critical for allowing players accomplishments to mean something, and not requiring the people managing for their corp to have to eat, sleep, and breathe the game 24/7. That being said, some reasonable adjustments to timers are well-warranted, and I heavily advocate making it impossible to squat 50 districts in the 1200 UTC timer. Timers can be handled more organically. The current implementation is restrictive as all hell. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5970	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:49:00 - [100] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Timers, timers, timers. Have I mentioned that timers are one of the biggest things holding PC back? I understand you believe that. It doesn't mean you're right. Timers are critical for allowing players accomplishments to mean something, and not requiring the people managing for their corp to have to eat, sleep, and breathe the game 24/7. That being said, some reasonable adjustments to timers are well-warranted, and I heavily advocate making it impossible to squat 50 districts in the 1200 UTC timer. Timers can be handled more organically. The current implementation is restrictive as all hell. Timers can stay for conquest. Let's make lesser engagements (such as when i drop myself and 15 random newbees on Molon Labe's planet to loot, pillage and otherwise steal everything nailed down we don't have to worry about whether "it's time" and Molon Labe can enjoy the practice session of getting their butts kicked by the clueless before the inevitable Nyain San conquest of their world. And my newbies get rewarded with neat loot. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10574	Posted - 2014.12.24 21:01:00 - [101] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Fleen Costell'o wrote: Hmmm, waiting fanfest... Dunno what for. They're not doing anything for Dust 514 or Project Legion at Fanfest. I will host roundtables an various topics and a DUST 514 pubcrawl, that's not nothing Not enough for me to shell out $2000 to go to Iceland over, lol, hence why I wound up cancelling my tickets. In either case, shouldn't have to go to Fanfest to get information about either game. It's nice to have a beer with you guys, don't get me wrong, but I certainly shouldn't feel obligated to spend an entire portion of my salary to learn about my favorite game EDIT: Either way, good job on what you're proposing so far with these PC iterations. They look like a good start. Honestly, nobody goes to Fanfest just for a presentation. You go there to have fun with friends and strangers while enjoying the epic view of Iceland while experiencing the culture and cuisines of your viking overlords. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 531	Posted - 2014.12.24 21:20:00 - [102] - Quote Can't wait for these changes and additions, Rattati. It would be cool if it was possible for warbarges to be piloted by EVE or DUST players and be vulnerable to attack in EVE Online. Although, like other fellow posters, I'm concerned that the changes to PC would not help it in any way if the current Skirmish game mode is the only one available. I have never played the old version of Skirmish but from what I've read about it, it would really fit PC better if it had a few tweaks to make it more balanced.
Brush Master Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1373	Posted - 2014.12.24 21:30:00 - [103] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. This may be done through the introduction of Corporation Rank as the defining metric for Corporation eligibility and power. Wait. Loyalty ranks are the defining metric of corporation power? I seriously hope this is not the case. Loyalty ranks are based almost entirely on the amount of AUR you've purchased. This is directly linking strength to how much money you've spent on the game. And this is pretty much the reason why "Loyalty" Ranks, as they are, should not be involved into any actual meaningful mechanic in the game. Some of us did raise concerns over amounts of aurum spent being (intentionally) cofused with activity levels in the first place... Ok, at the risk of skirting over the lines of NDA, I feel I should point out now to stop further confusion and prevent unnecessary angst that the term 'Loyalty Ranks' is a genaric term and shouldn't be assumed to be the same as what is already in the game. Revision: that being said the Loyality System we have in the game already is a pretty good indicator to determine alts created for the sake of making up numbers and alts that are actually actively used. When most refer to alts, alts are usually different PSN accounts due to the free sp that the game actually encouraged people to just make more free accounts instead of using the 2nd and 3rd character slots. So to say the loyalty ranks is a good indicator to determine alts, I think is a pretty inaccurate statement. Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? True Logi. Flying DS from the start. @dustreports
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5123	Posted - 2014.12.24 21:41:00 - [104] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Fleen Costell'o wrote: Hmmm, waiting fanfest... Dunno what for. They're not doing anything for Dust 514 or Project Legion at Fanfest. I will host roundtables an various topics and a DUST 514 pubcrawl, that's not nothing Not enough for me to shell out $2000 to go to Iceland over, lol, hence why I wound up cancelling my tickets. In either case, shouldn't have to go to Fanfest to get information about either game. It's nice to have a beer with you guys, don't get me wrong, but I certainly shouldn't feel obligated to spend an entire portion of my salary to learn about my favorite game EDIT: Either way, good job on what you're proposing so far with these PC iterations. They look like a good start. Honestly, nobody goes to Fanfest just for a presentation. You go there to have fun with friends and strangers while enjoying the epic view of Iceland while experiencing the culture and cuisines of your viking overlords. Aeon's case is a key reason why we encouraged that information to be posted. It is not good form to let players shell out that kind of money for international travel on false expectations. And several people seemed to be under the impression that they should expect a giant Legion keynote with beta versions playable on the floor or something like that. There's a lot of good reasons to go to Fanfest. I have heard nothing but positive impressions from people about how Fanfest is as an event, and I'm excited to go this year. (My wallet, however, is not excited about this, as it is now empty.) But it's good that people have the right expectations. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
da GAND Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 1077	Posted - 2014.12.24 23:24:00 - [105] - Quote Interesting and I have no problems with these changes at all, looking forward to all these things. Should Legion be on the ps4?
Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1054	Posted - 2014.12.24 23:44:00 - [106] - Quote Rat, it's great to have this information. There are, however, two very distinct subsystems you have treated here: Warbarges, and Planetary Conquest. Your language in the post overlaps and intertwines those two systems in an alarming way. At best, War Barges, implemented, have the potential to interact with PC mechanics. The two are separate. It is mission-critically essential to understand that PC cannot be fixed without a fundamental redesign of its own mechanics. Adding and integrating War Barge mechanics on top of the current PC mechanics cannot fix or redeem PC. The current Planetary Conquest mechanics are NOT in a state where they can be iterated on. Dev time used iterating on the current mechanics rather than redesigning them IS a waste. These statements come with the support of nearly two years of history with the current PC. If PC were at all in a place to be iterated on and not redesigned, the community would have been making those suggestions for the last year rather than trying to suggest band-aid patches to stem the bleeding since the current design is nearly unplayable. If there's some low-grade band-aid work done that integrates War Barges into the current PC mechanics very loosely before the necessary fundamental PC rework, that's reasonable. Anything past that, though, is both wasted time and will encourage you not to abandon the work you've put in when the time comes to redo PC. That will be an even worse decision. What you have posted are not ideological pillars. They are bullet points on a rough sketch of some implementations. The difference is extremely important; we need to know the design goals driving these changes and be able to comment on them directly. With this perspective, here's some commentary on your post: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase Two We want to allow Corporations to be measured on their collective Warbarge Fleets. The Corporation will then be able to invest in power structure/umbrella that either increases the power of each individual Warbarge module or grants brand new bonuses to the Corporation, tentatively called Warbarge Command. Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. This may be done through the introduction of Corporation Rank as the defining metric for Corporation eligibility and power. There needs to be an extremely serious discussion about how alliances fit into this picture. Alliances have been the red-headed stepchild of Dust, and unnecessarily at that. If the game design continues to ignore their existence, then a metric ton of new and more granular roles need to be added to corporation structure to allow for less risky distribution of power. The roles and mechanics we have currently aren't really sufficient to administer a corporation that's active in PC that has more than maybe 1k members without much hardship. More emphatically, though, I would suggest including alliances in the game's design going forward. One of the hardships of being a PC organizer, for instance, is that people very rarely want to leave their corps and alliances might as well not exist according to the mechanics. This is just one instance across a huge span of them where alliances could be integrated with the game but are discounted. CCP Rattati wrote: The lynchpin to this step is the introduction of the Warbarge Clone Vats Module (name TBD) where Clonepacks can be built with regular intervals, allowing Corporations without Districts to launch relatively risk free attacks on Districts. These attacks should be initiated from a list of Districts, displaying Timers, Clones, Corporation and other useful statistics and not from the Starmap itself. Finally, we are working on a different reward method for Planetary Conquest, primarily based on the simple premis of GÇ£you get what you destroyedGÇ¥. Combined with a minimum Corporation Rank to initiate attacks, we may see the end of district-locking and exploits in 2015. We may also reduce the available Timers and/or set Districts to fixed Timers that canGÇÖt be changed. All of this except for (maybe?) the clone vats is a direct contradiction of my original suggestion. Making UI changes to accommodate the current, broken PC mechanics as well as iterating on the rewards structure without a fundamental redesign are complete wastes of time. Trying to change a very specific part of the current PC mechanics (timers) without a fundamental redesign is also wasteful. You will not be able to repair current PC with these changes, and I distinctly feel like a properly top-down redesign of PC that has community feedback could easily make these mechanics obsolete. District locking and exploits are a result of the core PC mechanics that need redesigning. It's wishful thinking that they'll be fixed by iterating on a broken foundation. CCP Rattati wrote: Phase Three All of it. This phase sounds like it should include the fundamental redesign that I've been discussing. You need to open up this discussion to the community now, before you marry yourself to some implementation that fundamentally won't work. There is not a single group of 5-10 people working anywhere within Dust at the moment that have the capacity to make a good PC implementation by themselves without additional feedback. It would be incredibly ineffective for CCP and the CPM to cook up an elaborate implementation and then only ask for feedback on the numbers from the community. CCPers have never really understood the factors the go into PC, only 3 of the CPM have ever played PC competitively, and only one has done a lot of logistical work in PC. Thanks for the post, both Rat & CCP Shanghai, and many happy returns. Long term roadmap by Aeon Amadi Have a pony
Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1054	Posted - 2014.12.24 23:48:00 - [107] - Quote Sorry for a bit of a double post, I ran out of characters on the last one. One of the most helpful things CCP and the CPM can do is to start framing discussion of these potential War Barge changes in terms of War Barges as their own, new subsystem in Dust. Conflating War Barges with Planetary Conquest will produce bad, muddled, feedback and in any case is misleading. No matter how you think of it to yourselves, by not making a clear logical distinction between these two distinct subsystems designs in your discussions you're implying an expectation of improvements to PC that are not at all reasonably encapsulated by the introduction of War Barges. Long term roadmap by Aeon Amadi Have a pony
Grimmiers 754	Posted - 2014.12.25 02:46:00 - [108] - Quote There's a few things I'd like to see implemented for things to work more smoothly. Expand beyond Molden Heath It's currently to crowded with many corps opting out of pc because the current setup allows donuts to stomp out any chance to compete. Implement a contract system Eve could make better use of dust if there was a contract system. An eve pilot should be able to hire mercs of their choosing to take over a district for resources. Dust mercs should be able to set a price on themselves if they want to ring for money. This game should revolve around a contract system to get every type of player into pc/fw. A sandbox battle that allows for more interesting outcomes. The option to drop installations has been in the game as long as I can remember. Dropping installations like null cannons, turrets, scanners, null cannons, etc would initially be enough to give battles a sandbox feel. Districts could have a bandwidth limit for installation drops and installations should have a module layout. There's a lot of good flushed out gamemodes made by players for pc that would work a lot better than skirmish. Balancing a game-mode where there's one attacking mcc is what the players want even if it's not "fair". Not every battle needs to be large as well, districts should range from defending a small, medium, or large socket with player counts that fit.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5557	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:15:00 - [109] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Timers, timers, timers. Have I mentioned that timers are one of the biggest things holding PC back? I understand you believe that. It doesn't mean you're right. Timers are critical for allowing players accomplishments to mean something, and not requiring the people managing for their corp to have to eat, sleep, and breathe the game 24/7. That being said, some reasonable adjustments to timers are well-warranted, and I heavily advocate making it impossible to squat 50 districts in the 1200 UTC timer. Thor Odinson42 wrote: But one of the biggest complaints from those that have tried PC is the wait around for 30 minutes and not get chosen. A fight or two every other day isn't going to change much. On a given scale it'll still be the best 16 vs the best 16. It won't put any strain on the status quo. I disagree. A lot more corps being able to afford a lot more clone packs regularly means holding districts DOES become a lot more work. There will be a lot more corps in play, and a lot more battles on the schedule. The same 16 people won't be able to be in every match all the time, especially since this system should help reduce alt corp locking tactics as well. We've got nearly two years of evidence saying I'm right. You give people 24 hours notice and something worthwhile to fight for and it'll be the best 32 ISK can buy. Locking is a reaction to getting beaten or to protect yourself from getting stacked timers. In other words a work around for mechanics that lend themselves to small elite groups. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5557	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:19:00 - [110] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Generic commentary on the thread: Very glad this is out here now, I hope everyone has a lot of ideas and feedback on it. I saw a few people saying the barge should be a corp asset rather than a personal one. Some of us on the CPM lean that way as well, your feedback is surely valued on that topic. This is all high level stuff, and there's lots of room for tweaks to the system. And remember that this is an iterative process, so parts that don't work well can be tweaked and adjusted down the line. A few people wanted to know why the CPM didn't openly discuss our own proposal for PC. One of the major reasons for that was because our documents and CCP's documents were extremely similar. Both CCP Rattati and the CPM had an extremely similar view of what the key points were to making Planetary Conquest worthwhile, interesting, and exciting. It's pretty simple. You have a small minority of the playerbase with lots of ISK and SP that are hardened in the ways of PC. You have very little interest in PC from the vast majority of the playerbase. Introducing something that the vets will jump on to make themselves more powerful helps increase participation how? Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5976	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:23:00 - [111] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Generic commentary on the thread: Very glad this is out here now, I hope everyone has a lot of ideas and feedback on it. I saw a few people saying the barge should be a corp asset rather than a personal one. Some of us on the CPM lean that way as well, your feedback is surely valued on that topic. This is all high level stuff, and there's lots of room for tweaks to the system. And remember that this is an iterative process, so parts that don't work well can be tweaked and adjusted down the line. A few people wanted to know why the CPM didn't openly discuss our own proposal for PC. One of the major reasons for that was because our documents and CCP's documents were extremely similar. Both CCP Rattati and the CPM had an extremely similar view of what the key points were to making Planetary Conquest worthwhile, interesting, and exciting. It's pretty simple. You have a small minority of the playerbase with lots of ISK and SP that are hardened in the ways of PC. You have very little interest in PC from the vast majority of the playerbase. Introducing something that the vets will jump on to make themselves more powerful helps increase participation how? By incentivizing people to grow some balls and dive in. sooner or later someone will pop in and kick your butt. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5558	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:32:00 - [112] - Quote Grimmiers wrote: There's a few things I'd like to see implemented for things to work more smoothly. Expand beyond Molden Heath It's currently to crowded with many corps opting out of pc because the current setup allows donuts to stomp out any chance to compete. Implement a contract system Eve could make better use of dust if there was a contract system. An eve pilot should be able to hire mercs of their choosing to take over a district for resources. Dust mercs should be able to set a price on themselves if they want to ring for money. This game should revolve around a contract system to get every type of player into pc/fw. A sandbox battle that allows for more interesting outcomes. The option to drop installations has been in the game as long as I can remember. Dropping installations like null cannons, turrets, scanners, null cannons, etc would initially be enough to give battles a sandbox feel. Districts could have a bandwidth limit for installation drops and installations should have a module layout. There's a lot of good flushed out gamemodes made by players for pc that would work a lot better than skirmish. Balancing a game-mode where there's one attacking mcc is what the players want even if it's not "fair". Not every battle needs to be large as well, districts should range from defending a small, medium, or large socket with player counts that fit. PC is anything but crowded out. I've mentioned hundreds but when it's really humming and the big boys are active it's dozens of players that make things happen. This is not an exaggeration. 32 of the top AE players at their peak is enough to wipe you out. If they had an OH or a TP helping them they could wipe out any organization in a little more than a week. Once you remove a single corporation's districts they are either getting ferried into battles or buying clone packs. Unless they are certain they can beat an A team of one of those corps they aren't likely to attack anybody because the lesser corps will just contact one of the elite corps and repel your attacks. Without timer changes to bring spontaneity this changes nothing. And I'm not talking about everyone waking up and everything is gone. I don't want that either. I'm saying something more in the middle. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5129	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:33:00 - [113] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Introducing something that the vets will jump on to make themselves more powerful helps increase participation how? Warbarges are actually the mechanic that will help newer players get practice, lower investment to get into matches, and help bring the big powers to their knees. If you noticed the description of clone vats, there's an intention to allow war barges to generate clone packs. This will mean a LOT more fights will occur, as the cost to initiating them will be much lower. And with so many additional attacks constantly, corporations will have to think twice about what they can afford to hold. And getting more matches going is the key to getting more players practicing PC strategies. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5129	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:35:00 - [114] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Without timer changes to bring spontaneity this changes nothing. And I'm not talking about everyone waking up and everything is gone. I don't want that either. I'm saying something more in the middle. Timers are critical. Full stop. There's no way players can be expected to reasonably manage having to fight during their work day, because an attack was placed during their previous work day. Molon Labe, being a giant corp in a giant blue donut alliance, can manage that. A lot of groups can't. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5558	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:39:00 - [115] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Generic commentary on the thread: Very glad this is out here now, I hope everyone has a lot of ideas and feedback on it. I saw a few people saying the barge should be a corp asset rather than a personal one. Some of us on the CPM lean that way as well, your feedback is surely valued on that topic. This is all high level stuff, and there's lots of room for tweaks to the system. And remember that this is an iterative process, so parts that don't work well can be tweaked and adjusted down the line. A few people wanted to know why the CPM didn't openly discuss our own proposal for PC. One of the major reasons for that was because our documents and CCP's documents were extremely similar. Both CCP Rattati and the CPM had an extremely similar view of what the key points were to making Planetary Conquest worthwhile, interesting, and exciting. It's pretty simple. You have a small minority of the playerbase with lots of ISK and SP that are hardened in the ways of PC. You have very little interest in PC from the vast majority of the playerbase. Introducing something that the vets will jump on to make themselves more powerful helps increase participation how? By incentivizing people to grow some balls and dive in. sooner or later someone will pop in and kick your butt. You talk to me like I haven't been involved in multiple wars over 1.5+ years. Over the last few months KEQ, FA, and ML has tried to give away districts to get corps involved. Random Gunz, Dead Man's Group, and that's about it have become involved. Adding in something to make the current groups of players more powerful will be WORSE than allowing 80 Mil SP players in the Academy. Anyone with any actual experience in PC that denies this is just simply trolling. You've made multiple jabs at my corp in this thread. I'm not pointing out my fears out of paranoia of what it may or may not mean to ML. I'm pointing them out because I want to see PC as something a majority of the playerbase strives to participate in. Not a few dozen elite players slapping everyone around. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5558	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:42:00 - [116] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Without timer changes to bring spontaneity this changes nothing. And I'm not talking about everyone waking up and everything is gone. I don't want that either. I'm saying something more in the middle. Timers are critical. Full stop. There's no way players can be expected to reasonably manage having to fight during their work day, because an attack was placed during their previous work day. Molon Labe, being a giant corp in a giant blue donut alliance, can manage that. A lot of groups can't. Jesus f'n Christ. I'm not talking about Molon. I'm talking about any group that wants to recruit and grow an organization. You keep the timers the way they are and most of those players leave when they realize they aren't good enough to be chosen. Requiring a corporation to field multiple teams opens the doors for more people to participate out of necessity. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5558	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:43:00 - [117] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Introducing something that the vets will jump on to make themselves more powerful helps increase participation how? Warbarges are actually the mechanic that will help newer players get practice, lower investment to get into matches, and help bring the big powers to their knees. If you noticed the description of clone vats, there's an intention to allow war barges to generate clone packs. This will mean a LOT more fights will occur, as the cost to initiating them will be much lower. And with so many additional attacks constantly, corporations will have to think twice about what they can afford to hold. And getting more matches going is the key to getting more players practicing PC strategies. Lol, I guess we'll see. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5558	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:47:00 - [118] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Without timer changes to bring spontaneity this changes nothing. And I'm not talking about everyone waking up and everything is gone. I don't want that either. I'm saying something more in the middle. Timers are critical. Full stop. There's no way players can be expected to reasonably manage having to fight during their work day, because an attack was placed during their previous work day. Molon Labe, being a giant corp in a giant blue donut alliance, can manage that. A lot of groups can't. And if you'd actually done something with your alliance over the last few months you'd know that this big, blue donut has been trying to give away districts to groups like yours. But obviously you aren't interested. I can only guess due to the current mechanics you are defending. If you can't give away districts HTF is a warbarge generating clones going to make groups like yours interested? Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3329	Posted - 2014.12.25 04:10:00 - [119] - Quote Before entering into any sort of systems design. My one piece of feedback would be: What is the incentive to own a district? You need to answer this, and create a proper risk/reward structure that actually gets people interested in participating before going any further into balance and system design. You could spend months designing a pretty game mode but if no one has a reason to participate its all for naught.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5560	Posted - 2014.12.25 04:29:00 - [120] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Before entering into any sort of systems design. My one piece of feedback would be: What is the incentive to own a district? You need to answer this, and create a proper risk/reward structure that actually gets people interested in participating before going any further into balance and system design. You could spend months designing a pretty game mode but if no one has a reason to participate its all for naught. You are right about that, but I'll argue that finding a way to force corps to reach for their team C and D is vital to introducing more players into PC. If you don't address that it'll just bring back more of the elites and they'll just pistol whip everyone again. Without the ability to lock or work around the mechanics it'll just be the same dudes bitching about being tired of fighting each other every night. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.

ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3330	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:12:00 - [121] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: You are right about that, but I'll argue that finding a way to force corps to reach for their team C and D is vital to introducing more players into PC. If you don't address that it'll just bring back more of the elites and they'll just pistol whip everyone again. Without the ability to lock or work around the mechanics it'll just be the same dudes bitching about being tired of fighting each other every night. I could probably talk for hours about power projection, timer management and all sorts of stuff. A lot of that is just systems design though imo. Passive ISK generation through clone sales was the incentive to own a district before, now there is very little reason to own a district. Neither case is good for the long term health of the game, obviously. There needs to be something fundamentally different with how PC works. Sovereignty mechanics could really define this game from the other generic shooters that exist and if done correctly could possibly bring back many players who have quit. I don't have the answer myself, at least not one that fits into the limitations of the current client. Here is a spitball idea though, something to consider at the very least? 1. Create two new tiers of items. -The first is 'Specialist' which already exists in a limited fashion. This is proto stats at advanced CPU/PG. -The second is 'Overcharged' (or whatever) which has higher than proto stats at proto CPU/PG costs. These sort of exist already with items like the 100% needle or those special uplinks (forget the name). 2. Create these variants for everything you can in the game and make them available in the FW LP store and as fairly rare strongbox loot. 3. Create a 5th LP store. This 5th LP store would be slightly cheaper than faction LP stores and have all Specialist and Overcharged variants available, no standings grind. 4. Now, research labs (only) generate a static amount of 5th faction LP per day as payment for hired out research services and distributes that as a paycheck to members with a flagged role type (allowing the CEO to flag which member statuses would have access to this pool) in a similar way any CEO can flag certain members for starbase management in eve for example. Finally allowing the corp to tax a portion of this paycheck as they please (separate from ISK tax). In this situation, clones are purely war assets and research labs do not increase clone jump distance (a necessary nerf to power projection). Research Labs and Cargo Hubs no longer generate ANY clones, just clone production facilities. Now a corp must figure out how they want to balance money generation vs. war asset generation, and since the LP is paid directly to members its a bottom up approach instead of top down. So the above idea might be horrible and flawed or whatever. But at least thats a system I could see myself wanting to participate in, and other people when they see "ZDub 303 (Overcharged Assault Rail Rifle) [Insert name here]" then these players are gonna go "wtf is that and how do I get one?". I think the more active players in Dust may think of other, better, ideas than mine... but just a thought to get the ball rolling.
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 4950	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:24:00 - [122] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Modules will only work while the Corporations have a strong enough membership of real players (no alts), as measured by Loyalty Ranks or be gated in construction by membership, making it necessary to go out and recruit and train new players to get to the upper echelon of power. Rattati, is there a delay or sudden change mechanic on this? Say for instance of a sabotage group (corp A) loads up (corp B) with high loyalty rank spies in order to artificially bolster corp power in order to kill it before key battle, or wartime campaign. Is this intended? I really like the implications of it. Also, loyalty rank feels too strongly dictated by AUR purchases for me to agree with that last statement. Try the new Planetary Conquest Mode!
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 764	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:34:00 - [123] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: One question I have is will you be able to trade BPOs, Boosters, and Salvage boxes? Are certain items going to be untradeable? i have almost 600 boxes... i need over 300k AUR to open them all. that over $150
NDA Approved Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 139	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:34:00 - [124] - Quote The right veteran player defecting could have a pretty substantial impact on the war machine power of a corporation. +1 Imma in ur base, browsin' docs on docs. Trust me, I have clearance.
DJINN B4lock Ancient Textiles. 435	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:36:00 - [125] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Kain Spero wrote: One question I have is will you be able to trade BPOs, Boosters, and Salvage boxes? Are certain items going to be untradeable? i have almost 600 boxes... i need over 300k AUR to open them all. that over $150 The idea of forcing them open with a high % percentage to destroy contents has been floating around. -I believe this was brought up as a corporation role. DJINN B4lock, CEO Ancient Textiles. The premium emporium of fine fabrics from the dusty Orient.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5561	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:41:00 - [126] - Quote NDA Approved wrote: The right veteran player defecting could have a pretty substantial impact on the war machine power of a corporation. +1 It's never taken more than 10 or so losses for most corps to fold. Then players go to either a new 30 day corp, the corp that kicked their ass, or to a corp they think can kick the ass of the corp that kicked theirs. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2422	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:06:00 - [127] - Quote Posting something here from an ancient thread. It didn't get much traction then but we have a new regime now so worth another shot. The whole thread is worth re-reading tbh. The most fundamental point in designing PC for playability, relevancy and with the ability to engage the entire DUST population is how we motivate PC. Game-designer hubris can be a real danger here, we need a way to keep complex systems/game modes grounded: A'Real Fury wrote: A few quicks thoughts. Sorry if it has been mentioned before as this is a pretty long thread. Outside of ideological reasons I think a lot of wars are fought over resources i.e you lack something you need or want something somebody else has. Now to avoid nap fests going on too long you can limit the amount of resources that can be derived from a given district by gradually reducing the amount of it available until you hit a minimum baseline. This would result in a weakness that others can exploit, particularly if you link resource consumption to battles. The more fights in your district, even if you win, will result in repairs needing to be made and disruption to production. This could allow small corps or even individuals into Sovereign wars as they could be used for hit and run tactics, smash and grabs, and espionage to test out or even create instability into the system. Also resource reduction will result in these static corps moving onto greener pastures. Once this district has changed hands the new corp could use new "methods" to gradually increase production to where it was before it gradually declines again. With large corps employing small, deniable asset, corps in a low intensity war with sovereign nations will eventually lead to all out large scale conflicts because those nations will only see their resources being depleted through equipment loss etc. These small corps could also use low cost militia gear attacks with the intent to damage production and equipment with little Isk cost to them. This way the small corps can stay profitable because their costs are very limited and the big corp/nation can employ lots of them to attack districts etc. Within district attacks you could even reduce it to attacking specific building e.g the building where the corp stores some or a lot of their tanks which could then be destroyed or even stolen, though more likely to steal dropsuits, weapons , modules or even the resource being produced. I think it would be interesting to have specific skills available that would allow a player to increase resources that could be derived from that district making them particulary valuable to corps who want to hold districts even to the point of hiring them away from their current corps or skills like sabotage/high explosives to allow players to create a disproportionate amount of damage in sneak or hit and run campaigns. Hopefully these possibilities would result in a more fluid battle environment. Vrain Matari wrote: ^ This is the point exactly. +1. It's the underlying resource politics that need to inform the discussion of mechanics. This is how you build a system for longevity and playability. These systems need to be built fron the bottom up if they are to have any kind of coherent structure to them. If you make the design error of trying to paste an arbitrary set of mechanics onto an underlying set of resource mechanics what I'd expecty you to end up with is a system with inherent pathologies. Done right, player actions are driven and connected to real politics and hence other players, and not merely driven by max/min-ing a ruleset. PSN: RationalSpark
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1276	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:12:00 - [128] - Quote Guys, Rattati, CCP in general, let me put it to you thins way when it comes to PC. If you were to announce that Skirmish 1.0 would be re-implemented as the battle type for PC battles, I would -at that moment- go out right then, buy a 100$ PSN card, spend it all on Dust, resub my EVE account, and immediately start recruitment for You Can Call Me Daddy to step into the PC scene. And I'm sure there's a plethora of other people who would do the same. New warbarge features sounds fun, but so long as PC remains just a more inconvenient, difficult to set up, and expensive version of the standard skirmish, I'll stick to pubs and FW. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1801	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:13:00 - [129] - Quote For some reason I envision personal warbarges almost like garrisons in WoW and this makes me hopeful as the game will feel like less of a lobby shooter. Maybe there'll be a way to use them to travel space and set up orbit on FW planets you want to attack, and as another individual said - eve players could attack them but it would only offline bonuses instead of destroying the warbarge. Corporate warbarges could be much bigger investments and would likely have some common grounds, where the eve dream of walk-in-stations (read, barred in prisons) could finally be realized. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency 6572	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:42:00 - [130] - Quote Mercenary advertising? Well, I suppose I'll finally be able to rent out my services. As an AV player with a knack for sabotage and extraordinary biotic feats it shouldn't be too hard to get employers. Put your flags up in the sky. And wave them side to side. Show the world where you're from. Show the world we are one.

Banjo Robertson Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 379	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:47:00 - [131] - Quote I would like to see both player owned and corporation owned war barges. I would like to see some kind of war barge effect in public matches as well as faction war and planetary conquest. Although for public and faction warfare it would probably only be the WB of the squad leader/team leader that gets 'used' for the main battle purposes but maybe the others could be thrown in to add some kind of secondary support. I need to be able to name my own personal warbarge, or maybe make an officer warbarge available and it should be called "Banjo's S.O.L" + whatever else needs thrown on to make it a name, because Mystery Science Theater 3000 is one of the best shows and I want my own Satelite Of Love.
iKILLu osborne Titans of Phoenix 562	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:53:00 - [132] - Quote few ideas ability to select map for a owned district customizable maps introduced for district owners eve pilot can see the overhead map and track enemy movements w/the ability to give team orders(attack here, defend here) if an corp owns a district it gives the members the ability to sell gear for a % value set by the ceo that is paid through corp wallet. that asset is then stored at that district and can be bought by another member for a % value set by the ceo for example merc a sells item for 30% of market value subtracts from corp wallet added to merc a's wallet . merc b then buys asset at 60% value subtracts from berc b's wallet and is added to corp wallet and asset is added to merc b's inventory) merc a makes tad bit more then npc vendor would've offered, merc b saves ton from not having to buy at market value, corp makes tiny or huge profit determined by ceo any corp that manages to flip that district gets all assets if you shoot me from the redline i will ensure your death will be a swift one
Ramux PATAPON LORD-BRITISH Couedic Lancer And Shields 35	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:54:00 - [133] - Quote Translated into Japanese. http://ramuxumar.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-119.html?sp Translating DUST News into Japanese. @FPSholicsDiary
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5131	Posted - 2014.12.25 08:08:00 - [134] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Requiring a corporation to field multiple teams opens the doors for more people to participate out of necessity. Requiring a corporation to have to field multiple teams removes most of the corporations (except Molon Labe) from being able to participate. ZDub 303 wrote: Before entering into any sort of systems design. My one piece of feedback would be: What is the incentive to own a district? We've definitely discussed that heavily with CCP. Obviously the information presented in this road map is not all-inclusive of every feature change we've discussed so far. However, giving more explanation to the concepts on the roadmap allow us to discuss those more freely within the context of upcoming features. Thor Odinson42 wrote: It's never taken more than 10 or so losses for most corps to fold. Then players go to either a new 30 day corp, the corp that kicked their ass, or to a corp they think can kick the ass of the corp that kicked theirs. That's a huge reason why building some sort of loyalty to your corporation and allowing a corporation to be more than just "some people with the same name displayed under their profile" is key. To some degree, I can't sympathize for poorly-built corps. Many Top Men corps have experienced like... a hundred lost matches, but still stick together. Daddrobit wrote: If you were to announce that Skirmish 1.0 would be re-implemented as the battle type for PC battles, I would -at that moment- go out right then, buy a 100$ PSN card, spend it all on Dust, resub my EVE account, and immediately start recruitment for You Can Call Me Daddy to step into the PC scene. The point is, after like two years of CCP answering this question, players haven't figured out it isn't happening. Skirmish 1.0 is fundamentally incompatible with like... the entire game. This ranks somewhere around asking for a pony for Christmas. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5987	Posted - 2014.12.25 08:22:00 - [135] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: You've made multiple jabs at my corp in this thread. I got bored poking fun at Nyain San months ago. I expect it'll be another one in a month or two, suck it up, buttercup. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5570	Posted - 2014.12.25 08:37:00 - [136] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: You've made multiple jabs at my corp in this thread. I got bored poking fun at Nyain San months ago. I expect it'll be another one in a month or two, suck it up, buttercup. Buttercup, that's cute Pencildick. Why would a dude from goonfeet (perhaps the most irrelevant corp in Dust's history) who admits to tanking pub matches solely focused on killing vehicles feel compelled to poke fun at any corp? That's like a dude driving a beat up 20 year old Saturn making fun of person's new Corvette. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1400	Posted - 2014.12.25 09:00:00 - [137] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Brush Master wrote: I have to agree that a Skirmish 3.0 needs to be focused on if you are able to make it happen. Skirmish 1.0 actually had a moving MCC with real attack and defense mechanics. If we are upgrading a warbarge, then it makes sense that you can build one up to make it last longer, move faster, etc. On the other side, if you own a district, being able to upgrade your district base has appeal. Agreed, but if upgrading districts at this stage happened it may lock everything down. I think they should be careful until there's more participation in PC. All these things sound great, but I can't help thinking about AE or TP having 40 districts fully upgraded with beast mode warbarges. Without the current timer mechanics being changed up these things will seemingly lead to more thorough ass whippings by small elite groups. This is the biggest problem with PC and with Dust in general and these changes all seem to head toward exacerbating these problems rather than resolving them. They simply seem to reward being larger and more powerful with more power, which is fine if there is some separation or if there is only incentive to fight those who are relatively equal but all I see is more stomping to ensue. Because, that's why.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5987	Posted - 2014.12.25 09:02:00 - [138] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: You've made multiple jabs at my corp in this thread. I got bored poking fun at Nyain San months ago. I expect it'll be another one in a month or two, suck it up, buttercup. Buttercup, that's cute Pencildick. Why would a dude from goonfeet (perhaps the most irrelevant corp in Dust's history) who admits to tanking pub matches solely focused on killing vehicles feel compelled to poke fun at any corp? That's like a dude driving a beat up 20 year old Saturn making fun of person's new Corvette. tanking pubmatches? And since when has molon labe been relevant to me? That's right, NEVER. But I can count on you all to get highly offended if I make a smartass comment about your corp. thanks for the tears. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1804	Posted - 2014.12.25 09:04:00 - [139] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Requiring a corporation to field multiple teams opens the doors for more people to participate out of necessity. Requiring a corporation to have to field multiple teams removes most of the corporations (except Molon Labe) from being able to participate. ZDub 303 wrote: Before entering into any sort of systems design. My one piece of feedback would be: What is the incentive to own a district? We've definitely discussed that heavily with CCP. Obviously the information presented in this road map is not all-inclusive of every feature change we've discussed so far. However, giving more explanation to the concepts on the roadmap allow us to discuss those more freely within the context of upcoming features. Thor Odinson42 wrote: It's never taken more than 10 or so losses for most corps to fold. Then players go to either a new 30 day corp, the corp that kicked their ass, or to a corp they think can kick the ass of the corp that kicked theirs. That's a huge reason why building some sort of loyalty to your corporation and allowing a corporation to be more than just "some people with the same name displayed under their profile" is key. To some degree, I can't sympathize for poorly-built corps. Many Top Men corps have experienced like... a hundred lost matches, but still stick together. Daddrobit wrote: If you were to announce that Skirmish 1.0 would be re-implemented as the battle type for PC battles, I would -at that moment- go out right then, buy a 100$ PSN card, spend it all on Dust, resub my EVE account, and immediately start recruitment for You Can Call Me Daddy to step into the PC scene. The point is, after like two years of CCP answering this question, players haven't figured out it isn't happening. Skirmish 1.0 is fundamentally incompatible with like... the entire game. This ranks somewhere around asking for a pony for Christmas. Dear CCP/CPM if I do not get a pony for Christmas this year there will be consequences. You have been warned. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Lac Nokomis Kaalmayoti Warzone Control 22	Posted - 2014.12.25 10:48:00 - [140] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: @Community Another thing I strongly encourage the playerbase to do is to also come up with their own ideas as well revolving around the base concepts of these ideas. Presented here is a foundation; there time to build on it still and the final design has not happened yet it is still mostly all on paper and you guys have the chance to heavily influence that. For example the war barge does not have to be so tied down into PC that it cannot be an asset enjoyed elsewhere. It could be upgraded to support non pC actions such as FW or Pubs even. I mean what if the personal ship doesn't start out as a barge but the barges become something more synonymous to titans of eve online; the highest end personal goal you can set for yourself being a daunting task to upgrade to that size and you're starting with a war junker the size of a slightly larger mcc. As a newerish player (2 months) I wanted to show my support this type of idea. It even made me log in. :P As someone who knows not of PC experience other than what I hear, I would LOVE to be able to utilize what referenced in OP. Even though PC seems to be the "flagship" of Dust gameplay, I would really like to enjoy these expansions on my own. I also believe making this warbarge available to every player will lead to a more pleasant experience for EVERYONE WHO PLAYS. Not just players that stick with it long enough to get involved with PC. I mean shoot. If I could have had this type of thing to spend my time looking at/"specing" into/thinking about when I was new, my frustration with dust would have been greatly reduced. Plus something makes me think CCP getting a fair amount of money from players who don't play PC currently. So it might benefit to cater to that also. I don't know. Just a noob's .2 o7

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16269	Posted - 2014.12.25 10:52:00 - [141] - Quote Could these warbarge fleet apply to FW? Hell I'd grab one for PCLAS if we could attack districts using them. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Lac Nokomis Kaalmayoti Warzone Control 22	Posted - 2014.12.25 10:56:00 - [142] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: One question I have is will you be able to trade BPOs, Boosters, and Salvage boxes? Are certain items going to be untradeable? My total BS assumption would be Currently what you can sell, you can trade. So... Boosters: No. BPOs: Yes.
Aqua-Regia 680	Posted - 2014.12.25 11:33:00 - [143] - Quote Can the warbarges be use out side of PC battle, like in FW battle. Just having a warbarges for PC sound wasteful. GòöGòºGòºGòºGòºGòºGòºGòùGöÉGòôNo Longer a Collector Gòû Gòó *S00NGäó*GòPGò¼GòºGò¬GòñGòñGò¬GòñGòºGòºGòñGò¬GòñGòñGò¬GòñGòºGòºGòíHELLO GAMEGòPGûá GòÜGòñGòñGòñGòñGòñGòñGò¥Dust 514 GòPGò¢§GòÆGòú632554GòáGòòGòÆGòúRNDGòáGòò
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1402	Posted - 2014.12.25 11:52:00 - [144] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: It appears that I'll have to be very diligent in this thread. PC discussion always get lost in complex issues when the number one concern should be, "How do we get thousands and thousands of players involved instead of hundreds?". That is a key goal of allowing people to generate clone packs through tho system. To reduce the entry barrier significantly. They could do that simply by lowering the cost of clone packs. What prevents players from playing in PC is the fact that the top few players can always control everything. I don't see anything addressing this. Players should be limited to one district or one geographic area at a time. If a corp wants to hold several districts they will have to field several teams. Districts should be ranked so that everyone is striving to fight the team right above them and their is little or no incentive to attack those below you. Warbarges can be fit into those scenarios but unless these things change you will have the same handful of people in PC. Because, that's why.
Rannici Ancient Exiles. 174	Posted - 2014.12.25 12:42:00 - [145] - Quote I'LL BELIEVE THIS CRAP WHEN I SEE IT. NEVER BEFORE. FOOL ME ONCE CCP. LEAD ME ON FOR YEARS. THEN BREAK MY HEART INTO BILLIONS OF PIECES. YOU'VE GOTTA MASSAGE MY MAN MEAT IF YOU WANT BACK IN MY GOOD GRACES. ... THEN SUCK ON MY TOES, AND LET ME PEE ON YOU. MAYBE WE'D BE EVEN THEN. MMM.
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5536	Posted - 2014.12.25 14:47:00 - [146] - Quote Since a few people have mentioned timers, why not change how they function? For example, the orbital defenses of each District have a 1 hour "downtime" each day for calibration. An enemy Corporation can park their War Barge in position during this time frame and attempt to assault the orbital defenses so that they can keep attacking in a similar manner to the "re-up" attack system we have right now when more than 150 clones remain. This could be set up in all manner of ways, but the basic idea is that you have a 1 hour window to make an attack on a District, and if the defenders manage to win each battle within the hour your War Barge is forced to withdraw to avoid being shot down. This allows for "downtime" to be set based on the online times of your members such that your assets aren't taken while you're asleep, while also meaning that battles aren't something scheduled a day or two days in advance, so there's a bit more room for the element of surprise. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5574	Posted - 2014.12.25 16:22:00 - [147] - Quote To me it's easy to give a district a window. You can upgrade it for stronger defenses thus allowing the window for attack to be smaller. Unless you are an idiot you'd set the timers for your corporation's active times. CCP could make certain times used for hiding districts not available (during obvious inactive times for all of Dust). This is the easiest way to ensure that small groups can't control too much land no matter how good they are. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
xAckie Ghost. Mob 472	Posted - 2014.12.25 17:01:00 - [148] - Quote There needs to be more then 1 timer for a district. I would like 12 but realise this is impacticle due to the small player base but there needs to be a move to a more persistence open world type scenario/ end game. Plus there needs to be eve minerals to hold/ protect : mined eve side. Otherwise, as it stands the reintroduction of corp battles will pull more people out of pc. At the moment pc is time inefficient just for a corp battle. A ladder system should be introduced for corp battles. Districts need to have multiple sizes for teams from 8, 10,16. It will help smaller corps field teams consistently and start enjoying pc. There would be differbt sclse of rewards. From another thread someone mentioned players had to be stationed on their districts. I like this idea. I realise alts can sit on others but the principle is sound. And should be expanded on.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 764	Posted - 2014.12.25 18:37:00 - [149] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Daddrobit wrote: If you were to announce that Skirmish 1.0 would be re-implemented as the battle type for PC battles, I would -at that moment- go out right then, buy a 100$ PSN card, spend it all on Dust, resub my EVE account, and immediately start recruitment for You Can Call Me Daddy to step into the PC scene. The point is, after like two years of CCP answering this question, players haven't figured out it isn't happening. Skirmish 1.0 is fundamentally incompatible with like... the entire game. This ranks somewhere around asking for a pony for Christmas. ive heard that skirmish 1.0 cant be brought back, but ive never heard any of the official reasons why it cant be brought back or what was wrong with it. i would like to hear those reasons, perhaps in a new thread, instead of being told it cant be done.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4161	Posted - 2014.12.25 23:23:00 - [150] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Daddrobit wrote: If you were to announce that Skirmish 1.0 would be re-implemented as the battle type for PC battles, I would -at that moment- go out right then, buy a 100$ PSN card, spend it all on Dust, resub my EVE account, and immediately start recruitment for You Can Call Me Daddy to step into the PC scene. The point is, after like two years of CCP answering this question, players haven't figured out it isn't happening. Skirmish 1.0 is fundamentally incompatible with like... the entire game. This ranks somewhere around asking for a pony for Christmas. Skirmish 1.0 may be unreasonable, but a game mode where it actually feels like an attack and defense is not an unreasonable request. Currently it's two sides attacking a neutral base, with the only Attack vs Defense part being who owns the district, which has little to no bearing on actual gameplay. I understand that the current maps are not conducive to the old Skirmish 1.0. However, existing maps and how the gameplay works around those maps is capable of producing an attack and defense situation if things are reworked properly9, which is what the players have been calling for since the removal of Skirmish 1.0 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 764	Posted - 2014.12.26 00:01:00 - [151] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Daddrobit wrote: If you were to announce that Skirmish 1.0 would be re-implemented as the battle type for PC battles, I would -at that moment- go out right then, buy a 100$ PSN card, spend it all on Dust, resub my EVE account, and immediately start recruitment for You Can Call Me Daddy to step into the PC scene. The point is, after like two years of CCP answering this question, players haven't figured out it isn't happening. Skirmish 1.0 is fundamentally incompatible with like... the entire game. This ranks somewhere around asking for a pony for Christmas. Skirmish 1.0 may be unreasonable, but a game mode where it actually feels like an attack and defense is not an unreasonable request. Currently it's two sides attacking a neutral base, with the only Attack vs Defense part being who owns the district, which has little to no bearing on actual gameplay. I understand that the current maps are not conducive to the old Skirmish 1.0. However, existing maps and how the gameplay works around those maps is capable of producing an attack and defense situation if things are reworked properly9, which is what the players have been calling for since the removal of Skirmish 1.0 what happened to the game mode they said they were working on that allowed us to fight on multiple districts at once? I thought work was being done to make a game mode with extra large maps
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3424	Posted - 2014.12.26 15:11:00 - [152] - Quote assuming PC has not changed all that much from when i stopped playing. unless timers are removed you wont really get a lot of people playing. all that will happen and does happen is corps field their best 16, if they cant find their best 16 they just find ringers instead. timers simply introduce a shift patter into gameing. the common argument is no timers mean people have leave eat and breath this game. thats simply not true. unless you always keep the reward system as it is. simply changing payouts (of what ever form) to hourly introduce a hack and hold mentality so even if you can only hold a space for an hour or two you get a payout that was worth it. (assuming you can beat the current squatters). inevitably the bigger corps will try and hold land all the time and will have the membership count to do it, thus removing the need to have 16 allstars, and instead have a large membership count you can pool from to ensure you always have peopel to fight off an attack. leading to smaller corps executing raids and bigger corps trying to hold them off a good system where everybody wins and people only hold onto what they size to control. will their be people who turn this system into a full time job...well yes you cant stop stuiped but over time that trained thinking will die out. In regards to the new barges, make them something upgradable so players start out with a small tiny one, and it slowly builds up to something the size of the city, a clear root of progression will be needed so players can see how their performing and have some kind of attachment to what they own. or even have it that players own their own MCCs that can deploy from corp owned warbargers TLDR: timers need to be removed from PC to have any chance of growing...its a system thats never worked in any game iv played. iv yet to see a logical argument that timers need to be kept outside of fear that no timers means chaos which is bull beucase EvE only users timers to tell people...you really need to be at pos at this time the initial fights can kick off anytime and thats where the fun lies You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 5019	Posted - 2014.12.26 15:32:00 - [153] - Quote I'm not going to pretend I understand the grand scheme of PC but I totally agree with the above in that I can tell you that the one and only thing that persistently kept me out of PC was the timers. Even in the dying days of LOI when it was really just us and Hellstorm and they had 1 or 2 districts on reasonable (read: non-Nyain San) timers, I never could get in because RL simply does not and will not ever allow for me to play a video game on a rigid schedule. That alone will always keep a significant group of people out. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1017	Posted - 2014.12.26 19:39:00 - [154] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: To me it's easy to give a district a window. You can upgrade it for stronger defenses thus allowing the window for attack to be smaller. Unless you are an idiot you'd set the timers for your corporation's active times. CCP could make certain times used for hiding districts not available (during obvious inactive times for all of Dust). This is the easiest way to ensure that small groups can't control too much land no matter how good they are. You need to change the whole timer model. Make timers cover much larger periods and make attacks happen within 1 hour etc so you can build a team that's online and launch an attack knowing who you have as well as knowing you won't always be facing the same 16 die hard guys that had 24/48 hours of notice to prepare and get any necessary ringers. Also, Thor's points about involving B/C teams in PC via new mechanics would breath some fresh life into PC. Districts should flip more and battle lines be more fluid and those are the teams that should bring that to life instead of A team fighting the same A team time and again. Overlord of Broman
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2430	Posted - 2014.12.26 21:31:00 - [155] - Quote TL:DR at bottom. A primary design goal for a conquest/defend gamemode with persistence in a lobby FPS is balancing the innate advantage held by a small group of strong FPSers. Our current system is in effect gifting small but strong corps the pass at Thermopylae for every battle. Furthermore the current implementation of Genolution clone packs allows that pass at Thermopylae to be teleported to every battle, offensive or defensive, close to home or far away. In more open-world games(e.g. EVE), the zerg can balance the elites. That's not an option in DUST. But alternative balancing mechanics are possible: Financial/logistical limits to empire-building or other mechanics. We're going to have to propose & debate various mechanics meant to balance the power of small groups of strong players. While we do this we'll need to keep in mind other important goals for Planetary Conquest: Immersion in and eventual integration with New Eden/EVE Broad participation by the DUST playerbase Meaningful gameplay, independent of the New Eden/EVE connection Gameplay that cannot be 'gamed' to avoid battles, e.g. district locking and timer games Rewarding, but not in a way that will unbalance Pubs Make a system where the players generate the content along with outrageous stories to boot Most importantly, fun. Challenging and engaging are also pretty much necessities for the premier gamemode that is meant to distinguish DUST from the common shooter. It's a big ask to satisfy that list of criteria in a game as complex as DUST. My take on CCP's 'personal warbarge' mechanic is that it's meant to address the issues in the above list. What i don't like about it is that it's a set of meta rules imposed on top of the already broken PC game mechanics. Players have pointed out ITT that at a fundamental level the proposed warbarge mechanics won't fix what's broken in PC, and won't bring a broader demographic to PC. Barring more information from CCP, we'll have to find another way. A kick at the can for meaningful PC Q. Why PC? What are we fighting for? A. The standard reason for war and atrocity: Strategic Resources extracted from planets. This means 'something' that will allow one corp to beat it's twin corp in a single battle, or seriously challenge a stronger corp. A 'must have' for any PC contender. Doesn't matter what it is so long as it fits our list of design criteria. I'm going to suggest 'Weaponized Nanites' à la the 'Dust Wars' of Neal Stephenson's 'The Diamond Age'. The Strategic advantage of 'Nanites': Apply DoT damage/healing to enemy/friendly warbarge or installations or vehicles or dropsuits. We can work out the details later, but it's a simple mechanic and easy to implement. Please note that these 'Weaponized Nanites' cannot be used for Pubs, because Concord/Empires/Pirates would NUKE THE KITTENFUCK out of anyone who even joked about it. Keep clones and their production infrastructure for obvious reasons. Q. How do we handle the ability of the Elite corps to win individual timer-based matches for district ownership? A. We don't - they deserve that district because they are better than you are. If you decide to go mano a mano with them, you're foolish or brave. What we really need is a way to nip at their tendons - a pack of wolves bringing down a bear. In other words, smaller(6v6, 8v8, 10v10 or 12v12) non-timer non-ownership battles. The outcomes of these pre-battles, if successful, would be persistent infrastructure damage: tacnet degradation, hack/rehack timer changes, RDV delivery times, CRU spawn times, Supply depot resupply rate, steal nanites, steal clones, etc. The debuffs would have to be small, but big enough so that if the district owner lost/noshowed for all pre-battles then they'd definitely feel it during the big timer-based district defense fight. Also, district owners could repair this damage...by spending Nanites ;) The number of these raid attacks available against a district owner would be a function of the total districts held. Small landholders would have multiple opportuities to raid large landholders, but would face limited raids themselves. Also, don't forget....if you hold more weaponized Nanites than they do, and you're a solid corp, they're going to have a serious fight on their hands. Q. How do we get everybody involved? A. We need a contract system, for a couple of reasons. District owners can contract out defense for those smaller annoying little non-timer pre-battles, or even a big timer-based defense contract if they needed to. Corps who covet a district could hire smaller corps to harry the district owner with those non-timer pre-battles. Who knows Allies might even attack allies through the contract system, imagine the warroom dramas ;) Contracts would replace Genolution packs in that small corps could engage in PC anywhere for non-timer based battles. If Clone-stealing was one of the small non-timer battle modes we could get rid of Genpacks altogether. Maybe any corp could have a small 'clone wallet' of say 200 clones or whatever, we can work it out if peeps think this is a good idea. TL;DR Motivate PC via strategic military resources. Resources are 'Weaponized Nanites' and clones. Nanites do DoT damage/healing to MCCs or Installations or Vehicles or Dropsuits. 'Weaponized Nanites' cannot be used outside of PC. Add small(6-merc teams or bigger), optional(for the attackers) non-timer tactical battles designed to soften up enemies. Effects would be persistent but repairable with those Weaponized Nanites. More districts = more raid vulnerability. Get big corps employing smaller corps for all the above shenanigans: implement a contract system for PC battles. PSN: RationalSpark
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4057	Posted - 2014.12.27 00:25:00 - [156] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: To me it's easy to give a district a window. You can upgrade it for stronger defenses thus allowing the window for attack to be smaller. Unless you are an idiot you'd set the timers for your corporation's active times. CCP could make certain times used for hiding districts not available (during obvious inactive times for all of Dust). This is the easiest way to ensure that small groups can't control too much land no matter how good they are. You need to change the whole timer model. Make timers cover much larger periods and make attacks happen within 1 hour etc so you can build a team that's online and launch an attack knowing who you have as well as knowing you won't always be facing the same 16 die hard guys that had 24/48 hours of notice to prepare and get any necessary ringers. Also, Thor's points about involving B/C teams in PC via new mechanics would breath some fresh life into PC. Districts should flip more and battle lines be more fluid and those are the teams that should bring that to life instead of A team fighting the same A team time and again. I think what is needed is to have different types of attacks that follow different timer rules. I do agree that timers should be set to a 2 to 4 hour span instead of the current 1 hour attack window. Attacks that happen in less than 24 hours should be fights to steal production from the districts (clones, resources, etc.) while I think that attacks for ownership should still occur with at least a 23 hour heads up. One of the reasons the A-teams are always used is because the stakes for battles are to the extreme (district ownership) and if you have lower stakes battles in PC it would give the opportunity for B/C teams to make a show. Also, I think removing clone packs and replacing them with a corp-owned Warbarge that generates clones over time will do wonders to increase accessibility. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Ace Boone Capital Acquisitions LLC 608	Posted - 2014.12.27 06:36:00 - [157] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: To me it's easy to give a district a window. You can upgrade it for stronger defenses thus allowing the window for attack to be smaller. Unless you are an idiot you'd set the timers for your corporation's active times. CCP could make certain times used for hiding districts not available (during obvious inactive times for all of Dust). This is the easiest way to ensure that small groups can't control too much land no matter how good they are. You need to change the whole timer model. Make timers cover much larger periods and make attacks happen within 1 hour etc so you can build a team that's online and launch an attack knowing who you have as well as knowing you won't always be facing the same 16 die hard guys that had 24/48 hours of notice to prepare and get any necessary ringers. Also, Thor's points about involving B/C teams in PC via new mechanics would breath some fresh life into PC. Districts should flip more and battle lines be more fluid and those are the teams that should bring that to life instead of A team fighting the same A team time and again. I think what is needed is to have different types of attacks that follow different timer rules. I do agree that timers should be set to a 2 to 4 hour span instead of the current 1 hour attack window. Attacks that happen in less than 24 hours should be fights to steal production from the districts (clones, resources, etc.) while I think that attacks for ownership should still occur with at least a 23 hour heads up. One of the reasons the A-teams are always used is because the stakes for battles are to the extreme (district ownership) and if you have lower stakes battles in PC it would give the opportunity for B/C teams to make a show. Also, I think removing clone packs and replacing them with a corp-owned Warbarge that generates clones over time will do wonders to increase accessibility. Shhh, he's trying to fix what you destroyed Only loyal to the republic. I'm nothing more than bittervet without a PS3.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1814	Posted - 2014.12.27 14:31:00 - [158] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2529114#post2529114 for those that don't know how to use trello All Hail Legion
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5596	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:41:00 - [159] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: To me it's easy to give a district a window. You can upgrade it for stronger defenses thus allowing the window for attack to be smaller. Unless you are an idiot you'd set the timers for your corporation's active times. CCP could make certain times used for hiding districts not available (during obvious inactive times for all of Dust). This is the easiest way to ensure that small groups can't control too much land no matter how good they are. You need to change the whole timer model. Make timers cover much larger periods and make attacks happen within 1 hour etc so you can build a team that's online and launch an attack knowing who you have as well as knowing you won't always be facing the same 16 die hard guys that had 24/48 hours of notice to prepare and get any necessary ringers. Also, Thor's points about involving B/C teams in PC via new mechanics would breath some fresh life into PC. Districts should flip more and battle lines be more fluid and those are the teams that should bring that to life instead of A team fighting the same A team time and again. I really don't understand why more people don't see this. Just not enough people with interest and knowledge of how PC has played out. Dust would really, really thrive if more people tasted some level of success in PC. I think it would help pubs too as more people would spend time doing PC. Some more fluidity would ease some of the stress of single battles too. As it stood with passive ISK a few losses would destroy corporations. Making it more about campaigns than single battles would help that situation. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3429	Posted - 2014.12.27 20:02:00 - [160] - Quote Kain points about different attack types is a valid middle ground. having raids that could be executed whenever to steal resources or damage production. problem is with timers again, you will either have a siutatino where its does not worth defending so you never get fighters, or it stings to much and you just end up with a second shift of 16 defenders....or the same 16 who now have a bigger shift to cover. the key problem here is, corps will just use their 16 best/ringers regardless of what you do, its just how corp bosses think, PC right now could be fixed if they just used 16 anybodies but they dont, making the timers longer just means increases the likely hood of bosses making their 16 best stick around for longer compounding the problem. I firmly believe that to make PC enganging a reward system needs to be implemented that encourages shear numbers over skill. what that probably horrifies a lot of smaller corps, it needed if the system allows smaller corps to commit raids to grab and bits and peaces off the bigger guys. hell PC missions dont need to "wins". they need to be objectives. lets assume for sake of example. PC is now needed to build corp warbargers by building and storing warbarge parts and then finally having somewhere building it. this can really only be achieved by big corp holding the ground or smaller corps all working together corp A has the means to build warbarg if they can just get the parts. for example their warbarge needs a new engine. they know that corp B has said engine parts in one of their warehouses. so they commit a bunch of guys to a raid. corp B quickly sends a defence force to discourage corp A from doing anything more cheeky like trying to cap the warehouse all together corp A after a brief fire fight get the engine part they need and bug out before they send more experienced hands. they get what they are after with limited losses so they are happy corp B while pissed still only lost one item out of the warhouse rather than the whole thing now in this salutation if corp B had not defended then the original corp could have snatched the whole warehouse which would have cost corp B a lot of progress and these pirates would be LoLing all the way to market. This system forgos timers and instead encourages corps to only hold onto what they need while encouraging them to form multiple strike teams that can fight off attackers or go out and raid bits they need. big alliances and corps that have the manpower can also just flat out build warbarge fleets they need making it worth holding onto the land if you can do it. is the system perfect no, its just an idea but its highlights kain points. PC does not need to be a win lose, its tired objectives, matches dont need to be about wins or losses they need to be about a bigger picture that allows people of all skills levels to have a role. ....note i realise with my above idea, you could also have the ability to literary steal a warbarge as it finishes production, the little 16 man pro team could still be a perfectly valid threat no matter the corp size and i just really like the idea of doing an ocean 11s style hijack of warbarge :P edit: whoa this post ended up longer than i intended... the TLDR: move away from PCing matches and instead make it about objectives that build to a bigger goal You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 892	Posted - 2014.12.27 21:05:00 - [161] - Quote Two quick comments: - Personally I don't think I will look into PC as long as timers are a thing that exist. I'm just not that committed to Dust to schedule a match. Take that feedback for what it is, a subjective opinion. - What is the purpose of the Warbarge-concept? What I personally read is that I will be granted a bonus over new players. More so if I team up with other vets on the new players. Is that the intent? If not, what exactly is the intent behind Warbarges?
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4062	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:10:00 - [162] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Two quick comments: - Personally I don't think I will look into PC as long as timers are a thing that exist. I'm just not that committed to Dust to schedule a match. Take that feedback for what it is, a subjective opinion. - What is the purpose of the Warbarge-concept? What I personally read is that I will be granted a bonus over new players. More so if I team up with other vets on the new players. Is that the intent? If not, what exactly is the intent behind Warbarges? I really don't see the barge granted in-match bonuses as being acceptable (more damage, more ammo, more health, etc.) for this exact reason. Also, a personally owned barge is a really dumb idea and everyone running around with a capital ship in their pocket seems just plain silly (a personal ship maybe). A corp-owned asset that provides logistical bonuses in Planetary Conquest, LP bonuses in Faction Warfare, Salvage Bonuses in Pub matches, etc. I could see. Upgrading your merc quarters or your personal Merc vessel (not a personal capital ship, c'mon it's just silly) in this sort of End of Match vein I could see. In this vein I see Agent Jara actually as a good example of a personal upgrade and the direction the kinds of bonuses should take. On the point of timers. Because we are in a lobby shooter you have to have some element of scheduling because having an empty fight when you are trying to get a fight really isn't that exciting or having all of your stuff taken while you are asleep isn't compelling gameplay. Timer windows would make much more sense (2-4 hours) and be tied to district resource production. One of the reasons passive ISK generation was such a bad element of gameplay was because the output didn't scale with activity level. Districts need to produce something of value that is separate from clones and this needs to be actively extracted. While this extraction is occurring players with a Corp Warbarge in range (or maybe just anyone with a Corp Warbarge) can raid this extraction in order to steal the resources. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1811	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:16:00 - [163] - Quote I think bonuses for warbarges need to be handled carefully, I wouldn't mind seeing stuff like +4/mb bandwidth that would allow a player to have an uplink out while they're guarding a point as a heavy. But I don't want more generic damage /armor etc. Maybe stuff like shortened scanner cool down, or -3secs on uplinks or the like. Small powerful bonuses that arent related to damage / health or ewar. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4062	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:16:00 - [164] - Quote Reserved to explain active resource game mode (using either domination or skirmish). Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1426	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:42:00 - [165] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: Kain points about different attack types is a valid middle ground. having raids that could be executed whenever to steal resources or damage production. problem is with timers again, you will either have a siutatino where its does not worth defending so you never get fighters, or it stings to much and you just end up with a second shift of 16 defenders....or the same 16 who now have a bigger shift to cover. the key problem here is, corps will just use their 16 best/ringers regardless of what you do, its just how corp bosses think, PC right now could be fixed if they just used 16 anybodies but they dont, making the timers longer just means increases the likely hood of bosses making their 16 best stick around for longer compounding the problem. I firmly believe that to make PC enganging a reward system needs to be implemented that encourages shear numbers over skill. what that probably horrifies a lot of smaller corps, it needed if the system allows smaller corps to commit raids to grab and bits and peaces off the bigger guys. hell PC missions dont need to "wins". they need to be objectives. lets assume for sake of example. PC is now needed to build corp warbargers by building and storing warbarge parts and then finally having somewhere building it. this can really only be achieved by big corp holding the ground or smaller corps all working together corp A has the means to build warbarg if they can just get the parts. for example their warbarge needs a new engine. they know that corp B has said engine parts in one of their warehouses. so they commit a bunch of guys to a raid. corp B quickly sends a defence force to discourage corp A from doing anything more cheeky like trying to cap the warehouse all together corp A after a brief fire fight get the engine part they need and bug out before they send more experienced hands. they get what they are after with limited losses so they are happy corp B while pissed still only lost one item out of the warhouse rather than the whole thing now in this salutation if corp B had not defended then the original corp could have snatched the whole warehouse which would have cost corp B a lot of progress and these pirates would be LoLing all the way to market. This system forgos timers and instead encourages corps to only hold onto what they need while encouraging them to form multiple strike teams that can fight off attackers or go out and raid bits they need. big alliances and corps that have the manpower can also just flat out build warbarge fleets they need making it worth holding onto the land if you can do it. is the system perfect no, its just an idea but its highlights kain points. PC does not need to be a win lose, its tired objectives, matches dont need to be about wins or losses they need to be about a bigger picture that allows people of all skills levels to have a role. ....note i realise with my above idea, you could also have the ability to literary steal a warbarge as it finishes production, the little 16 man pro team could still be a perfectly valid threat no matter the corp size and i just really like the idea of doing an ocean 11s style hijack of warbarge :P edit: whoa this post ended up longer than i intended... the TLDR: move away from PCing matches and instead make it about objectives that build to a bigger goal Without facing with you on the details I have to say you have hit the meat of it for me, Steady. Make the PC matches have real value by assigning relevant meta objectives to the victories. Simple ISK wars based on the outcomes of essentially an organized Skirmish match can't be resurrected as the answer. Bottom line: Give me the capability to take something of real value and benefit from another corp and the capability to lose somethign of value that isn't simply ISK. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero Skype: jaysyn.larrisen Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6026	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:50:00 - [166] - Quote I don't believe active bonuses would be the way to go. I'd rather see things like: VR simulation and mnemonic enhancement area. Adds a bonus to active/passive SP. Contract filtering computers: higher ISK/LP payouts. Limited manufacturing: build x fit dropsuits per day or X vehicles. Salvage drone deployment: better EOM salvage. Things like this can enhance gameplay without breaking the in game battles and gunplay. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2431	Posted - 2014.12.28 03:10:00 - [167] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I don't believe active bonuses would be the way to go. I'd rather see things like: VR simulation and mnemonic enhancement area. Adds a bonus to active/passive SP. Contract filtering computers: higher ISK/LP payouts. Limited manufacturing: build x fit dropsuits per day or X vehicles. Salvage drone deployment: better EOM salvage. Things like this can enhance gameplay without breaking the in game battles and gunplay. Agree Breakin. Although i'm hardcore anti-tiericide, we absolutely do not need another set of bonuses that vets have over noobs. PSN: RationalSpark
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6028	Posted - 2014.12.28 03:17:00 - [168] - Quote Tiericide has a few benefits if applied only to dropsuits as was done to tank hulls. One of those benefits being FW suits for LP can be made more powerful than standard thus making them more worth grinding like Navy faction ship models in EVE. Another being fewer database calls which will increase server performance. Believe it or not dropsuit tiericide opens more options than it closes. I'll open a thread on that later if you would like to discuss. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 892	Posted - 2014.12.28 14:38:00 - [169] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Stuff I really don't see the barge granted in-match bonuses as being acceptable (more damage, more ammo, more health, etc.) for this exact reason. Also, a personally owned barge is a really dumb idea and everyone running around with a capital ship in their pocket seems just plain silly (a personal ship maybe). A corp-owned asset that provides logistical bonuses in Planetary Conquest, LP bonuses in Faction Warfare, Salvage Bonuses in Pub matches, etc. I could see I similarly can imagine establishing Warbarges initially as something similar to a "Guild House" known from other MMOs. A more-or-less meta-physical place that is constructed after reaching a certain threshold of corporation activity and allows people to organize and exchange assets and enables second tier corporation features, such as factional militia alignment or certain PC options. The second stage of Warbarges would involve allowing several to exist and focusing them around PC-logistics ("We can't attack that destrict yet because the only warbarge we have close enough has too few clones yet!") and the third involves turning them into physical Eve-things that can be looked at and locked on. Finally I'd like to repeat my initial reaction: We don't need any additional individual progression systems in Dust. We have progression system in spades already (passive & active SP, ISK economy and loyalty bonuses). Corporations don't have any progression system to them, but individual merc already have them in every shape and form ever necessary. Adding any on top is superfluous at best. TL;DR: If you want to grant more advantages to veteran players, modify the existing systems. If you want to do something else, use a different system.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4218	Posted - 2014.12.28 17:48:00 - [170] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2542736 See PDF for better visual representation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Pqc0ScXKN7emc3OUFScDJteEk/view?usp=sharing Player completion of Daily Missions generates Mission Points, or MP, which is pooled together in the War Barge and used to fuel War Barge functions. Personal Merc Quarters are stationed within the Corporate War Barge. Merc Quarters can be fit with a finite number of bonuses which benefit the player as an individual. The effectiveness of these bonuses is directly proportionate to the player's activity, and is ranked from 0-5 with 0 offering no benefit and 5 maximum benefit. Activity Rank is based off the MP of the player from the previous week, not enough activity will result in the rank going down, higher levels of activity will cause the rank to go up. The War Barge is the central headquarters of a corporation. Its primary function is Supply Logistics and Transportation of assets within New Eden. It can be constructed for a fee (Currency TBD) for any corp. Corps can only own one War Barge. The War Barge can be fit with a finite number of modules which run on cycles and benefit the corp as a whole. MP is spent to activate each module which has a different function, MP cost is dependent grade of the module, with higher tiered modules offering a higher benefit for a higher cost. Modules can boost the bonuses of the individual merc quarters, but also boost the Logistics of the War Barge in PC, specifically with the Logistics of Movement, Transportation, and Force Projection. Clone Vats Modules fit to the War Barge are used to generate Clone Packs at the cost of MP. Larger Clone Packs take more time to produce and cost more MP. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 235	Posted - 2014.12.28 20:45:00 - [171] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=186122&find=unread Linking a PC/Raids thread. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 736	Posted - 2014.12.28 22:07:00 - [172] - Quote Sick Who cares what some sniper has to say
Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 223	Posted - 2014.12.29 02:38:00 - [173] - Quote CCP Rattati. In your 2015 plans I didn't see anything about finishing what was started with vehicles. There has been a lot of great ideas floating around, and there has not been much update since your initial thread on the changes that will happen to vehicles. There were also a few CPM's taking questions etc about what could be done for vehicles but we haven't heard much feedback afterwards. Will there be any changes done coming in 2015 for vehicles and if so can you please give us vehicle users some information your team is willing to release. *Gabriella Grey* "Amarr Ace Pilot" Saracen Squadron 7th Fleet Division

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14100	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:48:00 - [174] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Because it's a half day at work and I'm bored... Players produce their own War Barge. When doing so, all generated WPs are pooled within the corporation. Personal War Barge can be fit with personal bonuses. Number of Bonuses dictated by the current Warbarge rank. Warbarge rank determined by personal WP production each week. Sufficient WP production will raise rank, insufficient production will lower rank. Min Level 0, Max Level 5. Corporations have a central Warbarge Commando structure which can be fitted with modules, each of which offers a bonus to all mercs with an active War Barge. WPs are then spent to cycle the modules on the structure, with the WP cost being a function of the number of Active Warbarges it is affecting within the corp. Since bonuses are based on Warbarge Command modules, the max amount of bonuses possible is capped. Small corps with high activity will be allowed to have high bonuses due to high WP production with lower player count, yeilding in cheaper bonus cycles. Large corps with inactive players will not be penalized due to inactive players, as cost and benefit is based on active WarBarges. Max number of bonuses active at once, so ultimate benefit is capped, meaning that after a point, a larger Corporation offers little tangible benefit in terms of bonuses. Constant actvity is required to produce enough WP to keep bonuses running. This is a pretty good encapsulation, not perfect but really close to the mark. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14100	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:55:00 - [175] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: You are right about that, but I'll argue that finding a way to force corps to reach for their team C and D is vital to introducing more players into PC. If you don't address that it'll just bring back more of the elites and they'll just pistol whip everyone again. Without the ability to lock or work around the mechanics it'll just be the same dudes bitching about being tired of fighting each other every night. I could probably talk for hours about power projection, timer management and all sorts of stuff. A lot of that is just systems design though imo. Passive ISK generation through clone sales was the incentive to own a district before, now there is very little reason to own a district. Neither case is good for the long term health of the game, obviously. There needs to be something fundamentally different with how PC works. Sovereignty mechanics could really define this game from the other generic shooters that exist and if done correctly could possibly bring back many players who have quit. I don't have the answer myself, at least not one that fits into the limitations of the current client. Here is a spitball idea though, something to consider at the very least? 1. Create two new tiers of items. -The first is 'Specialist' which already exists in a limited fashion. This is proto stats at advanced CPU/PG. -The second is 'Overcharged' (or whatever) which has higher than proto stats at proto CPU/PG costs. These sort of exist already with items like the 100% needle or those special uplinks (forget the name). 2. Create these variants for everything you can in the game and make them available in the FW LP store and as fairly rare strongbox loot. 3. Create a 5th LP store. This 5th LP store would be slightly cheaper than faction LP stores and have all Specialist and Overcharged variants available, no standings grind. 4. Now, research labs (only) generate a static amount of 5th faction LP per day as payment for hired out research services and distributes that as a paycheck to members with a flagged role type (allowing the CEO to flag which member statuses would have access to this pool) in a similar way any CEO can flag certain members for starbase management in eve for example. Finally allowing the corp to tax a portion of this paycheck as they please (separate from ISK tax). In this situation, clones are purely war assets and research labs do not increase clone jump distance (a necessary nerf to power projection). Research Labs and Cargo Hubs no longer generate ANY clones, just clone production facilities. Now a corp must figure out how they want to balance money generation vs. war asset generation, and since the LP is paid directly to members its a bottom up approach instead of top down. So the above idea might be horrible and flawed or whatever. But at least thats a system I could see myself wanting to participate in, and other people when they see "ZDub 303 (Overcharged Assault Rail Rifle) [Insert name here]" then these players are gonna go "wtf is that and how do I get one?". I think the more active players in Dust may think of other, better, ideas than mine... but just a thought to get the ball rolling. Very good points, I think we need to keep the LP weapons as a special category (That's where you go to get the specialist weapons as they are coming straight from the mass produced specialty rationed faction labs, and the overcharged "new" are coming from warbarge experimental labs. Officer remains salvage only. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14100	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:58:00 - [176] - Quote Banjo Robertson wrote: I would like to see both player owned and corporation owned war barges. I would like to see some kind of war barge effect in public matches as well as faction war and planetary conquest. Although for public and faction warfare it would probably only be the WB of the squad leader/team leader that gets 'used' for the main battle purposes but maybe the others could be thrown in to add some kind of secondary support. I need to be able to name my own personal warbarge, or maybe make an officer warbarge available and it should be called "Banjo's S.O.L" + whatever else needs thrown on to make it a name, because Mystery Science Theater 3000 is one of the best shows and I want my own Satelite Of Love. All are a part of the vision "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14100	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:58:00 - [177] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Mercenary advertising? Well, I suppose I'll finally be able to rent out my services. As an AV player with a knack for sabotage and extraordinary biotic feats it shouldn't be too hard to get employers. That's exactly the intent! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14100	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:07:00 - [178] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: For some reason I envision personal warbarges almost like garrisons in WoW and this makes me hopeful as the game will feel like less of a lobby shooter. Maybe there'll be a way to use them to travel space and set up orbit on FW planets you want to attack, and as another individual said - eve players could attack them but it would only offline bonuses instead of destroying the warbarge. Corporate warbarges could be much bigger investments and would likely have some common grounds, where the eve dream of walk-in-stations (read, barred in prisons) could finally be realized. Right on the money, but EVE attacks are not on the table. These Warbarges will not exist as a physical entity in 2015, they are as someone said, a metaphysical "home" and can not be attacked or destroyed except through new game modes that are not being discussed at the moment but A)"warbarge vs warbarge" is an idea, and B) "raid the warbarge" would mean a type of non-district PC where the attacker would fight in a "ship map" and steal resources (dust moon goo), but again not on the table for 2015. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14100	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:10:00 - [179] - Quote Lac Nokomis wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: @Community Another thing I strongly encourage the playerbase to do is to also come up with their own ideas as well revolving around the base concepts of these ideas. Presented here is a foundation; there time to build on it still and the final design has not happened yet it is still mostly all on paper and you guys have the chance to heavily influence that. For example the war barge does not have to be so tied down into PC that it cannot be an asset enjoyed elsewhere. It could be upgraded to support non pC actions such as FW or Pubs even. I mean what if the personal ship doesn't start out as a barge but the barges become something more synonymous to titans of eve online; the highest end personal goal you can set for yourself being a daunting task to upgrade to that size and you're starting with a war junker the size of a slightly larger mcc. As a newerish player (2 months) I wanted to show my support this type of idea. It even made me log in. :P As someone who knows not of PC experience other than what I hear, I would LOVE to be able to utilize what referenced in OP. Even though PC seems to be the "flagship" of Dust gameplay, I would really like to enjoy these expansions on my own. I also believe making this warbarge available to every player will lead to a more pleasant experience for EVERYONE WHO PLAYS. Not just players that stick with it long enough to get involved with PC. I mean shoot. If I could have had this type of thing to spend my time looking at/"specing" into/thinking about when I was new, my frustration with dust would have been greatly reduced. Plus something makes me think CCP getting a fair amount of money from players who don't play PC currently. So it might benefit to cater to that also. I don't know. Just a noob's .2 o7 That's exacly the point, I, as a solo player, lack the feeling of ownership and progression, yes I see my SP and ISK go up, but I want to invest in something that I personally own and reflects my power. Then, joining a corporation that both wants me and the power of my warbarge, while augmenting my own warbarge and opening up PC to me through "free or earned" clone packs, daring to attack one of the old powers in PC, is the underlying concept of this vision. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14100	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:18:00 - [180] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I don't believe active bonuses would be the way to go. I'd rather see things like: VR simulation and mnemonic enhancement area. Adds a bonus to active/passive SP. Contract filtering computers: higher ISK/LP payouts. Limited manufacturing: build x fit dropsuits per day or X vehicles. Salvage drone deployment: better EOM salvage. Things like this can enhance gameplay without breaking the in game battles and gunplay. This is very much aligned what we are thinking for the first iteration of warbarge modules. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Ghural WarRavens Capital Punishment. 362	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:28:00 - [181] - Quote Rather than just providing a bunch of modifiers, I'd like to see warbarge modules provide new abilities and effects. For example, the modules that you fit determine the types of orbital strikes you can call in. A module that allows a vehicle to materialise directly on the ground without requiring an RDV (a stealth deploy) A module that allows a player to deploy at high altitude and halo drop in. the ability to call in a single installation (or maybe replace one that has been destroyed)
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4088	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:32:00 - [182] - Quote Rattati, it just seems like the personally owned item and Corp owned barge should have different nomenclature. Also, while personal vessels and Corp-owned barges don't need a location in eve online for now I think a location conveyed on the dust star map and gameplay associated with that is needed to truly make these assets feel like home. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14104	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:46:00 - [183] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Rattati, it just seems like the personally owned item and Corp owned barge should have different nomenclature. Also, while personal vessels and Corp-owned barges don't need a location in eve online for now I think a location conveyed on the dust star map and gameplay associated with that is needed to truly make these assets feel like home. thats why the "warbarge flotilla" is the corporate owned part or fleet command, the "corp warbarge" is an overarching structure, not a ship. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14143	Posted - 2014.12.29 07:23:00 - [184] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: For some reason I envision personal warbarges almost like garrisons in WoW and this makes me hopeful as the game will feel like less of a lobby shooter. Maybe there'll be a way to use them to travel space and set up orbit on FW planets you want to attack, and as another individual said - eve players could attack them but it would only offline bonuses instead of destroying the warbarge. Corporate warbarges could be much bigger investments and would likely have some common grounds, where the eve dream of walk-in-stations (read, barred in prisons) could finally be realized. Right on the money, but EVE attacks are not on the table. These Warbarges will not exist as a physical entity in 2015, they are as someone said, a metaphysical "home" and can not be attacked or destroyed except through new game modes that are not being discussed at the moment but A)"warbarge vs warbarge" is an idea, and B) "raid the warbarge" would mean a type of non-district PC where the attacker would fight in a "ship map" and steal resources (dust moon goo), but again not on the table for 2015. So we won't be able to move Warbarges to a desired location to attack? Because that kind of kills half the reason I think Warbarges would be useful in fixing PC. Feline overlord of all humans Assault Conglomerate: Because we don't shave
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4089	Posted - 2014.12.29 07:23:00 - [185] - Quote I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Pseudogenesis Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1217	Posted - 2014.12.29 07:23:00 - [186] - Quote What are the steps being taken to ensure that this doesn't just become another barrier for new players? Also, what is the monetization strategy for these new features? I feel that while you guys have been doing great at providing early information on features for feedback, we've been left mostly in the dark when it comes to future monetization efforts. Strong boxes in particular could've had a really solid release if we had been given the numbers beforehand. Stabby-stabber extraordinaire I stabbed Rattati once, you know.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7625	Posted - 2014.12.29 07:27:00 - [187] - Quote Pseudogenesis wrote: What are the steps being taken to ensure that this doesn't just become another barrier for new players? Also, what is the monetization strategy for these new features? I feel that while you guys have been doing great at providing early information on features for feedback, we've been left mostly in the dark when it comes to future monetization efforts. Strong boxes in particular could've had a really solid release if we had been given the numbers beforehand. Please don't give their marketing team any ideas on ways to make this another "Freemium" thing. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Pseudogenesis Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1217	Posted - 2014.12.29 07:29:00 - [188] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Pseudogenesis wrote: What are the steps being taken to ensure that this doesn't just become another barrier for new players? Also, what is the monetization strategy for these new features? I feel that while you guys have been doing great at providing early information on features for feedback, we've been left mostly in the dark when it comes to future monetization efforts. Strong boxes in particular could've had a really solid release if we had been given the numbers beforehand. Please don't give their marketing team any ideas on ways to make this another "Freemium" thing. You're daft if you think there won't be any monetization in these new features. The only thing we can do is provide feedback on them early to ensure that they're fair. Stabby-stabber extraordinaire I stabbed Rattati once, you know.
GLOBAL fils'de RAGE Consolidated Dust 116	Posted - 2014.12.29 07:34:00 - [189] - Quote Modules? I would like a module that auto kils every high latency player that I encounter @ MILITIA @ ADVANCED it would auto kill an entire squad if 50% of them had latecy. @ PROTO would apply a DC shock to the corporations CEO's gentleman's sausage if that corporations success was based on a latency advantage. Add a ping avg. index to the scoreboard.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7625	Posted - 2014.12.29 08:01:00 - [190] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I don't believe active bonuses would be the way to go. I'd rather see things like: VR simulation and mnemonic enhancement area. Adds a bonus to active/passive SP. Contract filtering computers: higher ISK/LP payouts. Limited manufacturing: build x fit dropsuits per day or X vehicles. Salvage drone deployment: better EOM salvage. Things like this can enhance gameplay without breaking the in game battles and gunplay. This is very much aligned what we are thinking for the first iteration of warbarge modules. Allow me to provide a differing viewpoint about this. The basis of a Loyalty Rank dependence, which already provides additional benefits, as well as echoing the above poster, tells me that these modules are likely planned to be boosts of the same type. Due to the recent trend in new features (instant SP boosts, booster stacking, daily missions) I suspect and fear that these new Warbarges and their associated modules will be more Aurum items. I feel this may be a waste of potential toward what the Warbarges could contribute toward the game as a whole. An additional concern I have is that, if implemented in this manner, these modules would further devalue SP. Given current skill caps and applicable boosts a player can make upwards of 112 million SP or more a year. To my knowledge, there's only around 200 million SP worth of skills in the entire progression system. This poses a problem due to lack of content, which further ties into my next argument: This is an opportunity to do something unique and add a different element to the monotony. SP/currency boosters are plentiful as is so having more is both redundant and unnecessary. I personally feel that we should consider alterations in gameplay through production of new gameplay mechanics exclusive to Warbarges such as production of basic crafting elements, manufacturing capabilities, and trade assistance. Furthermore, IGÇÖd like to repeat my caution that Warbarges should not be more GÇ£free-to-payGÇ¥ aspects of the game and should not be exclusive to paying players. This is a great opportunity to apply to a large amount of the community in a provocative and beneficial way. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6034	Posted - 2014.12.29 08:35:00 - [191] - Quote Actually I think some warbarge upgrades should be an ISK dump while others should be LP rewards. Aurum should be excluded from warbarge upgrades entirely to give a pure "play the game" objective that isn't given a shortcut via wallet. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 495	Posted - 2014.12.29 09:11:00 - [192] - Quote I agree with the notion that Warbarge should not give any active (gunplay) bonuses. For that we have the current SP, modules and dropsuites structure. (One exception would be increased available bandwith, which could be introduced as a Warbarge module instead of a Dropsuite upgrade skill... Just a thought) I think the Corp Warbarge (used for PC) should only provide tactical advantages on the battlefield. Corporations should also be able to increase the defence "rating" on any owned districts, using the same resources used for equipping the Warbarge. This would mean a corporation have to choose between beeing offencive or defensive, but they can't have both at the same time. Sadly the current PC matches (standard Skirmish) etc does not give much room for this, which is why I think it's fundamental it changes as well. There have been many calls for Skirmish 1.0 (or similar), but perhaps we can work with what we got. My take on a future PC battle would be 3 consecutive matches of 1: Ambush, 2: Domination and 3: Skirmish. 1: The first Ambush match is just to get a foothold on the district and reduce the enemy clones. Win or loose, the next game (Domination) will always occur, but some aspects can be changed depending on who won the last game. 2: The second game is a Domination with a twist. The District owner already have all installations, CRUs and of course the objective at the start of the game. The opposing team goal is to hack the objective (once) before their clones or command ship is destroyed. If they manage to take the objective, the game is over and the next (Skirmish) will start. If they don't, the attack failed and the last game will not start 3: Provided the attackers won the domination Match, the third and last game (Skirmish) commences. As with the Domination, the district owners have all objectives and installations etc at the start of the game. As with the Domination, the objective is to hack all objectives before clones run out of command ship is destroyed. It will be very hard (but not impossible) to counterhack any point if taken. If the attackers win all matches the district is theirs, regardless how many clones the district owners have left, which will be lost / salvaged at the loss of the district. Now, the tactical part comes in. With the above scenario if a corporation equip their Warbarge for offence, they might get access to closer (fixed) spawn points, or even the mythical "sky spawn" which was discussed for Legion. For the defenders, if they don't spend some points in "defends" for the district, the districts will be "empty" of installations, Supply Depots etc. (turrets will have a much more tactical advantage if the defenders automatically own them at the start of the game). ... slightly off topic (warbarges that is), but I think much can be done to spice up PC with the game modes we have today, with slight alterations.
Lynn Beck Delta Vanguard 6 2341	Posted - 2014.12.29 09:19:00 - [193] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: I agree with the notion that Warbarge should not give any active (gunplay) bonuses. For that we have the current SP, modules and dropsuites structure. (One exception would be increased available bandwith, which could be introduced as a Warbarge module instead of a Dropsuite upgrade skill... Just a thought) I think the Corp Warbarge (used for PC) should only provide tactical advantages on the battlefield. Corporations should also be able to increase the defence "rating" on any owned districts, using the same resources used for equipping the Warbarge. This would mean a corporation have to choose between beeing offencive or defensive, but they can't have both at the same time. Sadly the current PC matches (standard Skirmish) etc does not give much room for this, which is why I think it's fundamental it changes as well. There have been many calls for Skirmish 1.0 (or similar), but perhaps we can work with what we got. My take on a future PC battle would be 3 consecutive matches of 1: Ambush, 2: Domination and 3: Skirmish. 1: The first Ambush match is just to get a foothold on the district and reduce the enemy clones. Win or loose, the next game (Domination) will always occur, but some aspects can be changed depending on who won the last game. 2: The second game is a Domination with a twist. The District owner already have all installations, CRUs and of course the objective at the start of the game. The opposing team goal is to hack the objective (once) before their clones or command ship is destroyed. If they manage to take the objective, the game is over and the next (Skirmish) will start. If they don't, the attack failed and the last game will not start 3: Provided the attackers won the domination Match, the third and last game (Skirmish) commences. As with the Domination, the district owners have all objectives and installations etc at the start of the game. As with the Domination, the objective is to hack all objectives before clones run out of command ship is destroyed. It will be very hard (but not impossible) to counterhack any point if taken. If the attackers win all matches the district is theirs, regardless how many clones the district owners have left, which will be lost / salvaged at the loss of the district. Now, the tactical part comes in. With the above scenario if a corporation equip their Warbarge for offence, they might get access to closer (fixed) spawn points, or even the mythical "sky spawn" which was discussed for Legion. For the defenders, if they don't spend some points in "defends" for the district, the districts will be "empty" of installations, Supply Depots etc. (turrets will have a much more tactical advantage if the defenders automatically own them at the start of the game). ... slightly off topic (warbarges that is), but I think much can be done to spice up PC with the game modes we have today, with slight alterations. THAT my friend, is a beautiful sight to behold. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RATATTI(see, i even spelled it right) IMPLEMENT THIS NYAOOOW(activates Cat Merc signal) General John Ripper -BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse. This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation'
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3430	Posted - 2014.12.29 09:59:00 - [194] - Quote I like the idea of the foltta(sp) where people band together into ammardrs (really can't spell today). As an idea you could have getting your first very basic warship a part of being aloud into FWD as a natural gate and a bit of new player guidance this natural growth could then lead into PC as you upgrade your ship. For example rookie ship allows you to store 3 tanks and a dropship. But a mid range also allows you strap OB equipment to it. Thus players with bigger and badder ships will naturally be sort out. While rookies can still be used to transport basic equipment to the field. The idea being to mimic how newbs are still useful in fleet fights by filling out core roles as tackerls. Rough idea more trying to get the feel across. Logistics of transport tanks around PC should be a thing imo forming front lines and natural borders normally generates communtys and natural fights from what iv seen You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 892	Posted - 2014.12.29 14:23:00 - [195] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: That's exacly the point, I, as a solo player, lack the feeling of ownership and progression Personally, I disagree. Compared to my 0 SP infantry alt my main is a demigod. If I could stage a fight between my two characters one of them would win with a 50/0 kdr using quafe suits only. Everything else I have to say on the topic hinges on that argument that I have no further objective proof on, so feel free to have a different opinion.
Dubya Guy Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 137	Posted - 2014.12.29 17:41:00 - [196] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: ... Here is a spitball idea though, something to consider at the very least? 1. Create two new tiers of items. -The first is 'Specialist' which already exists in a limited fashion. This is proto stats at advanced CPU/PG. -The second is 'Overcharged' (or whatever) which has higher than proto stats at proto CPU/PG costs. These sort of exist already with items like the 100% needle or those special uplinks (forget the name). 2. Create these variants for everything you can in the game and make them available in the FW LP store and as fairly rare strongbox loot. 3. Create a 5th LP store. This 5th LP store would be slightly cheaper than faction LP stores and have all Specialist and Overcharged variants available, no standings grind. 4. Now, research labs (only) generate a static amount of 5th faction LP per day as payment for hired out research services and distributes that as a paycheck to members with a flagged role type (allowing the CEO to flag which member statuses would have access to this pool) in a similar way any CEO can flag certain members for starbase management in eve for example. Finally allowing the corp to tax a portion of this paycheck as they please (separate from ISK tax). In this situation, clones are purely war assets and research labs do not increase clone jump distance (a necessary nerf to power projection). Research Labs and Cargo Hubs no longer generate ANY clones, just clone production facilities. Now a corp must figure out how they want to balance money generation vs. war asset generation, and since the LP is paid directly to members its a bottom up approach instead of top down. So the above idea might be horrible and flawed or whatever. But at least thats a system I could see myself wanting to participate in, and other people when they see "ZDub 303 (Overcharged Assault Rail Rifle) [Insert name here]" then these players are gonna go "wtf is that and how do I get one?". I think the more active players in Dust may think of other, better, ideas than mine... but just a thought to get the ball rolling. Very good points, I think we need to keep the LP weapons as a special category (That's where you go to get the specialist weapons as they are coming straight from the mass produced specialty rationed faction labs, and the overcharged "new" are coming from warbarge experimental labs. Officer remains salvage only. I think this is a great idea, I have suggested something related in detail directly to a CPM and in less detail in this thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2499362#post2499362 ZDub 303's (no relation) idea is much better fleshed out, but I completely support any idea related to Corp-branded gear as a non-isk incentive to district ownership. Particularly if different districts are known to produce different gear. This would make some districts more desirable than others to a Corp. FPS = First Person Support. Kills win battles but it's kinda hard to kill if you're dead and out of ammo.
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 252	Posted - 2014.12.29 18:17:00 - [197] - Quote If I may, one thing I'd like to throw into the conversation is the idea that these custom Warbarges should be viewed less as existing for a specific purpose, and instead as open-ended tools. Right now, we are largely viewing Warbarges as serving a role in PC (and to a lesser degree FW and Pubs). Now I do agree that Warbarges can help fix some massive problems in those areas. But we are limiting ourselves here a bit. We are succumbing to the fallacy of looking at Dust as it is now (the arena-FPS) and not what Dust could be (the Sandbox-MMORPG-FPS). Yes, Warbarges can be used for combat. In fact I'll agree that combat is what we should be balancing them against and making sure they are feature-complete for. But Merc built/owned/upgradable ships can be so many other things, too! I want to see Warbarges built as casinos, class-rooms, bars, personal yahts, third-party trade hubs, talk-show sets... I want to see war orientated Corps using barges not just for direct attack, but also for resorce production, quarter-master barges built for storing and distributing weapons to the front line, area-denial and guerrilla-warfare orientated barges, Corp social areas, rifle ranges.... To a certain degree, this is just repeating the situation of what the "Corporations" feature is and how it's used. Hypothetically, Corps exist to enable a group of players to grow in power, and eventually buy clone packs, take a district and then-on fight in the PC "end-game". But in the New Eden sandbox people repurpose tools constantly to serve their goals. People have utilized the Corporation feature to make banks, schools, escrow-services, and whatever-the-kitten Jadek Menaheim's been doing. ;) But with Corps being purpose built for war, many features that would aid/enable these other uses are critically missing. - There is no way to deploy to a district out side of direct PC warfare, this eliminates tons of other uses of Corps; no LAV races, no 1v1 gladiator tournaments, no schools giving hands-on lessons. - Corp messaging ability (both internal and external) is terrible; try sending a 30 mail lesson pack to each new student under the current mail system, try advertising your Corps services to anyone not living on the forums, try giving a lecture in a hundred person chat with no ability to mute loud people or kick trolls, try organizing in-game events without an in-game calender. At the heart of all this is a question of what we want Dust to be: Do we want to focus on the arena-FPS we've had since launch? Or do we want to build towards the Sandbox-MMORPG-FPS we fell in love with in the trailers?
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2197	Posted - 2014.12.29 21:36:00 - [198] - Quote The 30 mail lesson pack to new players is a particular near daily joy of mine. Warbarges are an important first step in what I hope will be a continuing iteration of corporation strength and identity. PSN outages and the only day off I had over Christmas being Christmas Day itself, I've had some really good games in Dust 514 over the festive period. The core of the game is in a good place right now (I'm not glossing over the issues it still has but I'm having more fun playing the game right now than I've had in months) and it's time to start thinking beyond weapon balance, which will never end by the way, it happens in Eve all the time. But increasing the sense of being in a corp and having that be of a direct benefit to your character is going to help build a solid foundation for the new iteration of PC that is mentioned in the Roadmap and the Epic for Faction Warfare in the later point builds of 'New Release' after Fanfest. As much as PC and to a lesser degree FW grab the forum headlines and attract splenetic juices, the greatest untapped strength of the game is the corporation model and how it works in New Eden. I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am with the current development arc that Warbarges are going to put us in. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4096	Posted - 2014.12.29 23:51:00 - [199] - Quote I would say that the social in Dust is the strongest of any FPS on console already. I think it's important to drive players towards corporations, but we can't loose sight that those corporations need something for those players to DO as a corporation to actually keep people logging in for that social. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11857	Posted - 2014.12.30 00:32:00 - [200] - Quote I kind of hate the idea of personal warbarges. It's like every single real life mercenary having their own personal aircraft carrier, but even more ridiculous. Warbarges should be something that a corporation owns. These "high level" PC ideas are pretty hard to care about, because the executions are always too intangible. I want tangibility. I want to be able to hangout in what me or my corp owns at any time I want; that means being able to walk on districts, and that means being able to walk in the warbarge that I or my corp owns whenever I want. Ownership should be more than text on a screen, it should be tangible. EDIT: On the subject of warbarges, I would like to see an evolution of corporate conflict in which battles take place inside a warbarge for control of it. Would likely require a ton of new art assets for ship interiors, so likely won't happen. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4245	Posted - 2014.12.30 00:41:00 - [201] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: I kind of hate the idea of personal warbarges. It's like every single real life mercenary having their own personal aircraft carrier, but even more ridiculous. Warbarges should be something that a corporation owns. These "high level" PC ideas are pretty hard to care about, because the executions are always too intangible. I want tangibility. I want to be able to hangout in what me or my corp owns at any time I want; that means being able to walk on districts, and that means being able to walk in the warbarge that I or my corp owns whenever I want. Ownership should be more than text on a screen, it should be tangible. EDIT: On the subject of warbarges, I would like to see an evolution of corporate conflict in which battles take place inside a warbarge for control of it. Would likely require a ton of new art assets for ship interiors, so likely won't happen. Yeah the personal Warbarge is kinda ridiculous but it is entirely a lore thing and has zero effect on how the system works functionally. I'm not too worried about what they call it, as long as functionally it makes sense. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14148	Posted - 2014.12.30 02:55:00 - [202] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics? That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5605	Posted - 2014.12.30 03:50:00 - [203] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I would say that the social in Dust is the strongest of any FPS on console already. I think it's important to drive players towards corporations, but we can't loose sight that those corporations need something for those players to DO as a corporation to actually keep people logging in for that social. The raids you and Pokey are kicking around fill that void in a big way. Most people I play with want to spend their time playing with people they are communicating with. I wish 90% of my time in Dust were matches free of random blueberries. Spontaneous, frequent matches as a team would be amazing. I think a platoon/team building UI of some form is necessary for something like this to really take off. It gets to the point you feel as though you are herding cats when putting a PC together and even worse when syncing. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4248	Posted - 2014.12.30 03:53:00 - [204] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics? That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war. Ahhhh music to my ears to hear you approve of that concept, Rattati. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14146	Posted - 2014.12.30 04:20:00 - [205] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: I agree with the notion that Warbarge should not give any active (gunplay) bonuses. For that we have the current SP, modules and dropsuites structure. (One exception would be increased available bandwith, which could be introduced as a Warbarge module instead of a Dropsuite upgrade skill... Just a thought) I think the Corp Warbarge (used for PC) should only provide tactical advantages on the battlefield. Corporations should also be able to increase the defence "rating" on any owned districts, using the same resources used for equipping the Warbarge. This would mean a corporation have to choose between beeing offencive or defensive, but they can't have both at the same time. Sadly the current PC matches (standard Skirmish) etc does not give much room for this, which is why I think it's fundamental it changes as well. There have been many calls for Skirmish 1.0 (or similar), but perhaps we can work with what we got. My take on a future PC battle would be 3 consecutive matches of 1: Ambush, 2: Domination and 3: Skirmish. 1: The first Ambush match is just to get a foothold on the district and reduce the enemy clones. Win or loose, the next game (Domination) will always occur, but some aspects can be changed depending on who won the last game. 2: The second game is a Domination with a twist. The District owner already have all installations, CRUs and of course the objective at the start of the game. The opposing team goal is to hack the objective (once) before their clones or command ship is destroyed. If they manage to take the objective, the game is over and the next (Skirmish) will start. If they don't, the attack failed and the last game will not start 3: Provided the attackers won the domination Match, the third and last game (Skirmish) commences. As with the Domination, the district owners have all objectives and installations etc at the start of the game. As with the Domination, the objective is to hack all objectives before clones run out of command ship is destroyed. It will be very hard (but not impossible) to counterhack any point if taken. If the attackers win all matches the district is theirs, regardless how many clones the district owners have left, which will be lost / salvaged at the loss of the district. Now, the tactical part comes in. With the above scenario if a corporation equip their Warbarge for offence, they might get access to closer (fixed) spawn points, or even the mythical "sky spawn" which was discussed for Legion. For the defenders, if they don't spend some points in "defends" for the district, the districts will be "empty" of installations, Supply Depots etc. (turrets will have a much more tactical advantage if the defenders automatically own them at the start of the game). ... slightly off topic (warbarges that is), but I think much can be done to spice up PC with the game modes we have today, with slight alterations. THAT my friend, is a beautiful sight to behold. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RATATTI(see, i even spelled it right) IMPLEMENT THIS NYAOOOW(activates Cat Merc signal) Implement it right meow! Feline overlord of all humans Assault Conglomerate: Because we don't shave
GLOBAL fils'de RAGE Consolidated Dust 118	Posted - 2014.12.30 05:02:00 - [206] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Two quick comments: - Personally I don't think I will look into PC as long as timers are a thing that exist. I'm just not that committed to Dust to schedule a match. Take that feedback for what it is, a subjective opinion. - What is the purpose of the Warbarge-concept? What I personally read is that I will be granted a bonus over new players. More so if I team up with other vets on the new players. Is that the intent? If not, what exactly is the intent behind Warbarges? I really don't see the barge granted in-match bonuses as being acceptable (more damage, more ammo, more health, etc.) for this exact reason. Also, a personally owned barge is a really dumb idea and everyone running around with a capital ship in their pocket seems just plain silly (a personal ship maybe). A corp-owned asset that provides logistical bonuses in Planetary Conquest, LP bonuses in Faction Warfare, Salvage Bonuses in Pub matches, etc. I could see. Upgrading your merc quarters or your personal Merc vessel (not a personal capital ship, c'mon it's just silly) in this sort of End of Match vein I could see. In this vein I see Agent Jara actually as a good example of a personal upgrade and the direction the kinds of bonuses should take. On the point of timers. Because we are in a lobby shooter you have to have some element of scheduling because having an empty fight when you are trying to get a fight really isn't that exciting or having all of your stuff taken while you are asleep isn't compelling gameplay. Timer windows would make much more sense (2-4 hours) and be tied to district resource production. One of the reasons passive ISK generation was such a bad element of gameplay was because the output didn't scale with activity level. Districts need to produce something of value that is separate from clones and this needs to be actively extracted. While this extraction is occurring players with a Corp Warbarge in range (or maybe just anyone with a Corp Warbarge) can raid this extraction in order to steal the resources. If any concerted "grown up" attention was given to the #1 problem with DUST, then timers would be a management tool to organise, and not an offense/defence mechanic used soley to game geographical timezones. What is the #1 problem? It is the same problem every FPS ever made or will ever be made! It effects, straffing, hit detection, frame rate, client lock ups, and overall enjoyment. It determines victory and defeat. It is the 900lb Gorilla staring CCP in the face! It is latency. Every router between you and the server MUST be looked at like jump gate. Would a local fisherman personally deliver his daily catch to the other side of the world? No, he would bankrupt. Moving fighters across a galaxy is the same. Revenue generation is paramount to CCP, I do agree, and I have financially put my money where my mouth is. CCP you must practice "tough love" fixing your geographical routing problem will upset the baby carriage/pram, but babies bounce. Latency is a cancer, and DUST's growth has been negatively impacted, because it's game play ruining effects are obvious. JUMP GATES=eve lore JUMP GATES+EVELORE > latency -latency = +$$$$
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4099	Posted - 2014.12.30 05:30:00 - [207] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics? That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war. Having location matter will really be key to getting planetary conquest humming like a well oiled machine. It might be worthwhile to examine replacing messy clone loss mechanics with load clones from district to barge/flotilla (or have barge generate clones via the vat if you have no districts) then move barge/flotilla in range of targets. Instead of range (movement) costing clones potentially have it cost fuel. Trying to figure out how many clones were actually going to land for a fight back in the old days of planetary conquest was a pain and I'd hate to see that return. I think the list of targets you mention could work well with this. Select the flotilla and get a list of targets in range according to filters the player sets. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14158	Posted - 2014.12.30 05:47:00 - [208] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics? That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war. Having location matter will really be key to getting planetary conquest humming like a well oiled machine. It might be worthwhile to examine replacing messy clone loss mechanics with load clones from district to barge/flotilla (or have barge generate clones via the vat if you have no districts) then move barge/flotilla in range of targets. Instead of range (movement) costing clones potentially have it cost fuel. Trying to figure out how many clones were actually going to land for a fight back in the old days of planetary conquest was a pain and I'd hate to see that return. I think the list of targets you mention could work well with this. Select the flotilla and get a list of targets in range according to filters the player sets. ahh, beautiful and elegant. Basically a calculator of clone loss based on position of attack initiation and attacked district, could work from both flotilla and district, calculation based on Infrastructure and or Warbarge Modules (Long Range Assault Launchers or Improved MCCs). "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 235	Posted - 2014.12.30 07:40:00 - [209] - Quote Dreaming again but rather than 3 matches would a new version of skirmish 1.0 be workable where the objectives close in on the enemy base? Stage 1 : hack one of the points around the base to choose your staging ground. Defenders can scout to try and find you and stop you gaining a hoothold. Stage 2 : Attackers must hack several points may be the power grid, defence grid and communications. Stage 3 : Storm the base, if the attackers out clone the enemy and the match ends but the defender retains the base and gets the chance to commit more clones to the fight. Succeed in infiltrating and hacking and you take the base. If the owner outclones the attacker the assault must be restarted. I know I see a lot of people asking for the return of something like this. I don't know if it's a possibility even. But I like how the single match progresses, it's more open and seemless. Of course non of this maybe possible. I do like the idea that an ambush is used to try and reduce clonecount.. raids could be used for the same thing. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 498	Posted - 2014.12.30 07:42:00 - [210] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics? That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war. Having location matter will really be key to getting planetary conquest humming like a well oiled machine. It might be worthwhile to examine replacing messy clone loss mechanics with load clones from district to barge/flotilla (or have barge generate clones via the vat if you have no districts) then move barge/flotilla in range of targets. Instead of range (movement) costing clones potentially have it cost fuel. Trying to figure out how many clones were actually going to land for a fight back in the old days of planetary conquest was a pain and I'd hate to see that return. I think the list of targets you mention could work well with this. Select the flotilla and get a list of targets in range according to filters the player sets. ahh, beautiful and elegant. Basically a calculator of clone loss based on position of attack initiation and attacked district, could work from both flotilla and district, calculation based on Infrastructure and or Warbarge Modules (Long Range Assault Launchers or Improved MCCs). While I think a built in "clone loss" calculator would help, I agree with Kain it would be better to have another limiting factor than available clones. For example: - The Warbarge module bonuses could diminish with a set amount every jump. - Some form of fuel (as Kain mentioned) - Overall attack efficiency (tactical advantage) get reduced, making it technically possible to attack far of districts, but very hard to capture. - Making it possible for other corps to raid your Warbarge fleet during transit, making it very dangerous to travel long distances.

Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 498	Posted - 2014.12.30 07:56:00 - [211] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: Dreaming again but rather than 3 matches would a new version of skirmish 1.0 be workable where the objectives close in on the enemy base? Stage 1 : hack one of the points around the base to choose your staging ground. Defenders can scout to try and find you and stop you gaining a hoothold. Stage 2 : Attackers must hack several points may be the power grid, defence grid and communications. Stage 3 : Storm the base, if the attackers out clone the enemy and the match ends but the defender retains the base and gets the chance to commit more clones to the fight. Succeed in infiltrating and hacking and you take the base. If the owner outclones the attacker the assault must be restarted. I know I see a lot of people asking for the return of something like this. I don't know if it's a possibility even. But I like how the single match progresses, it's more open and seemless. Of course non of this maybe possible. I do like the idea that an ambush is used to try and reduce clonecount.. raids could be used for the same thing. I agree (I would also prefer to have a new game mode type, similar to Skirmish 1.0). But I understand it might be difficult to implement as it would be very different from the current game modes. The suggestion with 3 consecutive games was meant as a workaround / placeholder until we can have something proper. I think it's importaint the defenders actually defends something, not just spawns far off (as the attackers) and have to hack their own objectives, like it's done today. If everything is owned by the defending corporation at the start of match, it becomes a completely different game even with the current game modes we have today. Things like Turrets which are located closest to the enemy MCC, which are pointless today since they are neutral, will be strategical importaint. (The enemy might be forced to spawn tanks to take out the blaster turrets before infantry can enter the base, etc) Attacking anything should feel like a uphill battle. Then the victory becomes so much sweeter.
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2199	Posted - 2014.12.30 09:16:00 - [212] - Quote I like the idea of staged offensive/defensive map styles, both for PC and FW. Gives both of them a different feel and texture than the normal skirmish matches we have now, that offer nothing different, other than intensity, than what Public Matches do. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 258	Posted - 2014.12.30 13:37:00 - [213] - Quote Small post, but just want to say: A narrative excuse we can use for why Warbarges aren't visible/attackable in EVE is that they (usually) are located in very low orbit over planets. EVE ships (at least in gameplay) have never been able to get this close to planets; if we also add a line about their ships' sensors not being designed/optimized to scan in this area, we can handwave away a lot of the "invisible ships" issues people are bringing up. I suppose that doesn't resolve the sub-question of "Where are the Warbarges when they're moving between systems/planets?", but it would resolve the rest. And heck, maybe down the line we want 'barges visible and semi-vulnerable during transit.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7635	Posted - 2014.12.30 14:13:00 - [214] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: I like the idea of staged offensive/defensive map styles, both for PC and FW. Gives both of them a different feel and texture than the normal skirmish matches we have now, that offer nothing different, other than intensity, than what Public Matches do. Need that before we even touch the warbarge stuff in my opinion. Skirmish 3.0 was needed years ago. Yes, it's been 2+ years since we last saw Skirmish 1.0. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Balistyc Farshot Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4	Posted - 2014.12.30 18:27:00 - [215] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: I like the idea of staged offensive/defensive map styles, both for PC and FW. Gives both of them a different feel and texture than the normal skirmish matches we have now, that offer nothing different, other than intensity, than what Public Matches do. Need that before we even touch the warbarge stuff in my opinion. Skirmish 3.0 was needed years ago. Yes, it's been 2+ years since we last saw Skirmish 1.0. I do have an easy answer to the requests for new types of battle and it orients well to the new warbarges. I understand maps are not easy to make, test, and publish so why not simply take 2 or three of your city/factory map sections and connect them. Then since you have the environment changes in place now, paint the sky all metal and set wall boundaries. BAM! inside a ship map. No vehicle drops or orbitals because we're in a ship. Points can be in there, straight up ambush would work as well. This works with the Warbarge because then we can fight in our ships as say a counter strike methodology. The issue with PC today IMO is that there are a few big fish and the little fish can't even swim in the lake. Give the smaller corps the chance to attack an alliance ship and have a ship battle to take their clones. Then the smaller corps have a reason to PC without a district. It is also coding light, so minimal testing is needed! Let me know what you think. Thanks. One of the first murder logis - Who says medic's shouldn't have proficiency 5 on their Proto AR?
Balistyc Farshot Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4	Posted - 2014.12.30 18:36:00 - [216] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: [quote=Lady MDK]Dreaming again but rather than 3 matches would a new version of skirmish 1.0 The suggestion with 3 consecutive games was meant as a workaround / placeholder until we can have something proper. I think it's importaint the defenders actually defends something, not just spawns far off (as the attackers) and have to hack their own objectives, like it's done today. If everything is owned by the defending corporation at the start of match, it becomes a completely different game even with the current game modes we have today. Things like Turrets which are located closest to the enemy MCC, which are pointless today since they are neutral, will be strategical importaint. (The enemy might be forced to spawn tanks to take out the blaster turrets before infantry can enter the base, etc) Dream on, you crazy genius! We need more fuel on this fire. I also think since you guys want corps to rotate through their players and play their b,c,d, and practice jersey lines, make it so you can only participate in one of the battles per character. This adds the strategy of, do I put my A team in the first wave and burn down the enemy clones or do I save them encase I need them for the 3rd wave. the attacking team can put their A team on the first wave then throw the second match and simply be burning and weakening an opponent. It will make alliances and mercenaries very popular and adds an element of strategy unlike any FPS. Be aware that some people will fill their corp with alternates though, so debate on how to handle that if you like this path. One of the first murder logis - Who says medic's shouldn't have proficiency 5 on their Proto AR?
Sigourney Reever Hyasyoda Terrestrial Acquisitions Firm 68	Posted - 2014.12.30 23:55:00 - [217] - Quote I know that at this stage Dust development is occurring without changes to the EVE link, but the mobility issue has to be addressed. Clones moving point to point is one thing. There is an existing New Eden process for that: Medical Clones, Jump Clones. Warbarges being a semi-permanent deployable structure however (or a ship, but clearly there's not enough development time to sort that out) is something completely different. There simply has to be some sort of time and risk limitation to their deployability. As well as some other fundamental quantified variables: Can Warbarges move planet to planet in a system, are they vulnerable to anything and is there any transport cost (time or $)? Can Warbarges move system to system and if so why wouldn't they use the EVE stargates, thus becoming vulnerable? Do Equipment and Vehicles take up space in the Warbarge? At the very least it seems that Warbarges, if they're to exist in New Eden, should be visible to EVE ships. They're clearly intended to be occupying the same physical universe. They should have to deal with capsuleers in some manner, be it only visible to them (probably too little), or completely destructible by them (probably too much for an initial roll out). New Eden interactions are very much shaped by geography. Dust, when talking about moving something between New Eden planets and systems, should be as well.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10613	Posted - 2014.12.31 05:14:00 - [218] - Quote Sigourney Reever wrote: I know that at this stage Dust development is occurring without changes to the EVE link, but the mobility issue has to be addressed. Clones moving point to point is one thing. There is an existing New Eden process for that: Medical Clones, Jump Clones. Warbarges being a semi-permanent deployable structure however (or a ship, but clearly there's not enough development time to sort that out) is something completely different. There simply has to be some sort of time and risk limitation to their deployability. As well as some other fundamental quantified variables: Can Warbarges move planet to planet in a system, are they vulnerable to anything and is there any transport cost (time or $)? Can Warbarges move system to system and if so why wouldn't they use the EVE stargates, thus becoming vulnerable? Do Equipment and Vehicles take up space in the Warbarge? At the very least it seems that Warbarges, if they're to exist in New Eden, should be visible to EVE ships. They're clearly intended to be occupying the same physical universe. They should have to deal with capsuleers in some manner, be it only visible to them (probably too little), or completely destructible by them (probably too much for an initial roll out). New Eden interactions are very much shaped by geography. Dust, when talking about moving something between New Eden planets and systems, should be as well. The problem with that is how to implement all of that. Here are questions to consider even if the Eve-Dust link is established. 1. What would be the war declaration mechanics between an Eve aggressor corp and a Dust defender corp? 2. What measures would be put in place for war deccing in order to discourage harassment of Dust corps by Eve corps? Remember that harassment in Eve Online is highly frowned upon by CCP. 3. What about the use of cynosural field generators that would enable a Dust warbarge to get around stargate camps? 4. Would they be of the covert cyno types or the regular types for cyno generators? Keep in mind that a cyno lights up on every Eve player's overview on the local system like a christmas tree. You might as well hold a sign that says "SHOOT ME!" 5. Would warbarges be exempt from being able to use inbound cynos in high-sec? Currently in Eve, inbound cynos can't light up in high-sec. Though a ship can cyno out of high-sec into low-sec. 6. Will the warbarges require a second player to cyno like Eve players have to? And these are questions right off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more questions to be brought up. Given these questions, I can see now why CCP doesn't want to start with a Eve-Dust link at first. It's a complicated series of systems to account for and I'm sure it would take many months of planning, calculating, testing, adjusting, re-testings, and deployment. I don't really see an Eve-Dust link being established -- let alone expanded upon -- until maybe 2016. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 236	Posted - 2014.12.31 17:32:00 - [219] - Quote Initially when I saw warbarges/flottilas and raids on the roadmap I suddenly considered a whole new angle of gameplay. If the warbarges involved in PC and maybe even FW are all visible on the map of new eden and they have a jump range for moving about (maybe once or twice in the space of a few minutes then they have to recharge) as well as a range that mercs can be projected into action. You almost have a game in itself a bit like RISK or Slay in dust/eve terms. Could you actually end up with flotillas facing off and raiding enemy and defending your own barges? prior to attempting to take a district maybe with the upper hand, maybe as the underdog? I also thought about the possibility of cynos in eve for movement but i also considered that the new warbarge and flottila mechanics may very well be a way of removing the link to eve as far as gameplay goes. WTF? think about it if every one has their own warbarge why would we need a eve side person to deliver a bombardment. To start with this made me a bit sad as the link was a major sellin point in the early days but CCP have said Legion will have none at least to begin with. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5615	Posted - 2015.01.01 17:09:00 - [220] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The lynchpin to this step is the introduction of the Warbarge Clone Vats Module (name TBD) where Clonepacks can be built with regular intervals, allowing Corporations without Districts to launch relatively risk free attacks on Districts. These attacks should be initiated from a list of Districts, displaying Timers, Clones, Corporation and other useful statistics and not from the Starmap itself. This part worries me. From my perspective one of the most important things that PC needs to make it feel like you are conquering land, is to Make Location Matter! So getting away from using the Starmap raised a red flag and caused me to reread that paragraph several times. It looks to me like you are trying to create a more user friendly interface for launching PC battles. I am fine with this on 2 conditions: 1)The number of jumps required to get from where you are launching the attack to each district is listed, so you can see which districts are close and which are farther away. At a minimum this is needed for immersion. 2)The star map needs to be left in to provide a way of seeing district ownership from a spacial point of view. To make people feel like they own land, they need to be able to see where that land is. Seeing it on a map is a lot more satisfying than seeing it on a Spreadsheet. Here is how I think it should work: Corporations with a high enough Corp Rating should be able to rent Districts in High Sec, or rent docking facilities for their Warbarge at High Sec stations, and when they launch attacks they should launch from those locations. Have Clone mortality implemented as with the original implementation of PC, so the more jumps you have to take to get to the target district the more clones you lose in transit. Once you own a district, you can launch attacks from any of your district locations, or rented High Sec facilities. This makes choosing where to rent your High Sec docking facility a tactical decision, as it effects who you can attack. You will have new CEOGÇÖs poring over star maps trying to find a weak target and then trying to determine which High Sec system to rent space in to launch attacks on that target. If you have Clones accumulate over time at the rented High Sec facilities, then it becomes an ongoing tactical play, even before a Corp actually gets their own PC district, as moving to another High Sec facility should also result in clone mortality so that moving to another High Sec facility on the other side of the Region will cause you to lose most of your clones and have to wait a few days to grow new clones before you can launch an attack. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5615	Posted - 2015.01.01 17:37:00 - [221] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: For some reason I envision personal warbarges almost like garrisons in WoW and this makes me hopeful as the game will feel like less of a lobby shooter. Maybe there'll be a way to use them to travel space and set up orbit on FW planets you want to attack, and as another individual said - eve players could attack them but it would only offline bonuses instead of destroying the warbarge. Corporate warbarges could be much bigger investments and would likely have some common grounds, where the eve dream of walk-in-stations (read, barred in prisons) could finally be realized. Right on the money, but EVE attacks are not on the table. These Warbarges will not exist as a physical entity in 2015, they are as someone said, a metaphysical "home" and can not be attacked or destroyed except through new game modes that are not being discussed at the moment but A)"warbarge vs warbarge" is an idea, and B) "raid the warbarge" would mean a type of non-district PC where the attacker would fight in a "ship map" and steal resources (dust moon goo), but again not on the table for 2015. And yet ruling out nothing for Legion Warbarges in 2018GÇª Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5615	Posted - 2015.01.01 17:48:00 - [222] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics? That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war. Exactly! As I was saying in Post 219. If you go with Warbarge Docking facilities at High Sec stations, you can have it display as Corporate Offices EVE side, to have a cross platform implementation without having to change anything in EVE. Then that gives the added advantage of providing hanger space for any EVE pilots you have in your Corp. Cross platform / Benefit to EVE players / No Dev time on EVE side: Trifecta of Awesome! Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
The-Errorist 956	Posted - 2015.01.01 20:49:00 - [223] - Quote I find the lack of mentioning new game modes, especially in the backlog, very disheartening. I would like a true attack/defend game mode like skirmish 3.0 or something with more elements like Hawken's seige mode. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 973	Posted - 2015.01.01 20:50:00 - [224] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ...We may also reduce the available Timers Awesome, every district can have their timer changed, but only to x:00. This will mean that a corp that can reliably field a team 24 hours a day can hold 24 districts. If they want more than 24 districts, they'll need to be able to field 2 teams for at least one timer. If they want to sleep, then they can probably hold 12 districts, etc. This will greatly reduce land hoarding and open up land for smaller corps. Quote: and/or set Districts to fixed Timers that canGÇÖt be changed. Um, no. That will tie entire regions of space to corps that operate in certain timezones. BAN ADVANCED GEAR FROM PUBS \| Mass Driver Advocate
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5612	Posted - 2015.01.01 21:07:00 - [225] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: ...We may also reduce the available Timers Awesome, every district can have their timer changed, but only to x:00. This will mean that a corp that can reliably field a team 24 hours a day can hold 24 districts. If they want more than 24 districts, they'll need to be able to field 2 teams for at least one timer. If they want to sleep, then they can probably hold 12 districts, etc. This will greatly reduce land hoarding and open up land for smaller corps. Quote: and/or set Districts to fixed Timers that canGÇÖt be changed. Um, no. That will tie entire regions of space to corps that operate in certain timezones. Actually it would open it up for corps without (32) 6+ KDR players to grow their numbers and participate albeit with a different strategy than those small elite corps. Without changing the timer mechanics you keep the power in the hands of a select few. And really the thing that's always stopped those groups is getting burnt out. A change in the mechanics of the timers benefits everyone. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Eltra Ardell Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 482	Posted - 2015.01.02 06:56:00 - [226] - Quote Don't listen to Kane, he's a goon spy here to ruin DUST so it has to go to PC.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 974	Posted - 2015.01.02 08:36:00 - [227] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: KA24DERT wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: ...We may also reduce the available Timers Awesome, every district can have their timer changed, but only to x:00. This will mean that a corp that can reliably field a team 24 hours a day can hold 24 districts. If they want more than 24 districts, they'll need to be able to field 2 teams for at least one timer. If they want to sleep, then they can probably hold 12 districts, etc. This will greatly reduce land hoarding and open up land for smaller corps. Quote: and/or set Districts to fixed Timers that canGÇÖt be changed. Um, no. That will tie entire regions of space to corps that operate in certain timezones. Actually it would open it up for corps without (32) 6+ KDR players to grow their numbers and participate albeit with a different strategy than those small elite corps. Without changing the timer mechanics you keep the power in the hands of a select few. And really the thing that's always stopped those groups is getting burnt out. A change in the mechanics of the timers benefits everyone. Reducing the amount of timers and expansion beyond Molden Heath will do a lot to allow small other corps to take districts. Fixed timers will result in extreme stagnation. The different strategy is going to be what exactly? "Hey guys, let's be Australian"? BAN ADVANCED GEAR FROM PUBS \| Mass Driver Advocate
Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1065	Posted - 2015.01.02 10:29:00 - [228] - Quote Posted in a nearby thread, replicated here. Leither Yiltron wrote: So community members are furiously ~~masturbating~~ collaborating on fundamental PC design. Here's an idea that I came up with that seems to have gone over well. Districts no longer hold clones, they hold MCC's. Control of a district is lost when the defender has no more MCC's remaining Defenders lose an MCC if they lose a battle on the district Attackers require an MCC and a "Clone block" (basically a single unit of an additional resource) to attack Attacks happen through a system other than direct clone movement; this is a full rework of part of the logistics subsystem that needs to be discussed Clone destruction is no longer the primary payoff determiner; this involves a full rework of the rewards subsystem that needs to be fleshed out and discussed In-game clone count for both teams is set at a reasonably high default. 150-180+ has been on the table for discussion. The quick list of reasons: Simplification of attacking, defending, and attrition - The granularity of clone movements is an over complication that doesn't add much tactical value. Attrition rates are crazy hard-to-intuit calculations, and again don't add much tactical value. The new system is much simpler: You can attack a district, or you can't. You have defenses left on a district, or you don't. Removal of "unwinnable" games - Gameplay value is detracted when one team or another has to play a match with a critically low number of clones under the current system Separation of battle win-conditions and sovereignty/logistics in general. The intertwining of these systems makes balance a lot harder. This theme of degranularization of PC resources is extensible, and should be applied throughout the redesign wherever possible. Complication for the sake of complication isn't necessarily more "tactical" or "strategic", and comes with its own share of pitfalls. Long term roadmap by Aeon Amadi Have a pony
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens Capital Punishment. 3028	Posted - 2015.01.02 21:15:00 - [229] - Quote Ahh, the Holiday craze is over and now I can reply. I hope you see it Rattati or I will cry. 1. Personal Warbarge I like this. To be quite honest I thought the Warbarge was the Warbarge and not your own though it never really mattered before; the Warbarge could have been filled with Gallente responsible for the disappearance of our beloved Heth and it wouldn't mean anything to me. Having something to upgrade is really quite cool, especially if it involves NOT SPENDING REAL MONEY. I understand that this is a business but please understand that to us, it is a game; we want to have fun rather than feel that there is a serpent around our necks and wallets. I digress. I like the idea of upgrading your Warbarge to make you a little better. My only concern is how this causes power creep. SP is already a fairly big factor in this game so having another way that "I am better than you!" might cause a bit of a problem. I certainly like the idea though and am curious how it would work. 2. Matchmaking More matchmaking is always more better. Just make sure Scotty stays away from the absinthe so he doesn't fall asleep at the stick. For me, I hate getting in a battle that is over. It wastes everyone's time, especially my own dammit! However, I would still look into the problem of getting far, far less rewards for joining a battle just 2 minutes late compared to joining at the start. From my own experiences and from what my friends have experienced, joining a battle that is X% over will yield far, far, far less rewards that 100 - X rewards. I have joined dominations that were at 140/140 with maybe three blips taken away from MCC health and have gotten so little rewards even for doing well that now I always just leave a battle if isn't in the first 20 seconds. The part I think is most interesting in the "faster to shoot people" is that the game was never meant to be ultra fast in this regard, at least it wasn't billed as such. Obviously things have changed but I find it funny that the game is moving more speed action based. Just something I noticed. 3. Planetary Conquest Imagine if Game of Thrones focused solely on Jon Snow sitting at the wall waiting for something to happen. Imagine if The Wire only followed McNulty as the stereotypical drunk cop. Going less pretentious, imagine if your friend walked past the beautiful lady obviously giving him 'the eyes' to go pick up on a woman barfing into the toilet while her bodybuilding, protective boyfriend lovingly holds her hair. I feel that is where CCP and in an extent you, Rattati, are poorly focused on. Planetary Conquest sucks. Yes, it is interesting for the whole "EVE player sends a signal to DUST that causes a nuke to go off" but it is obnoxious to play. You can read here for my entire take on it. Why is this THE feature of DUST that everyone should strive for? If nothing else, you need to do make something that causes the critics to at least go "yeah it is annoying and I don't like it but it does have/give X." I am curious where this Resource is going. Technically speaking, Assault Rail Rifles are something that only exist and are claimed by Mercenaries. Are you aiming for something that is useful for EVE players that DUST players can get? That sounds cool but there are some problems. I will tackle the stickiest last... A. If I get this Resource and it is used by EVE players, I want to sell it. However, the problem is that there is no isk transfer and for damn good reason. A T1 Cruiser meant to be in a cheap fleet will cost several million. I have not played in a year or so but a T1 Cruiser with T1 stuff was about 10 million. If you lose it, oh well, no big deal. If I lose 10 million ISK, I lose about 20% of my total ISK. ISK is so much easier to get in EVE than in DUST. For DUST, it is probably about 1-1.5 million isk an hour if you are running ambush constantly. A Venture mining Veldspar will earn that on a completely fresh character and even a level 3 mission runner is at 86 million an hour. If this Resource was important, it would be both priceless and worthless. We don't have super expensive things to buy. Even expensive tanks at around 1 million ISK with a full Prototype suit probably don't hit over 1.4 million. That's a lot to DUST mercs but an EVE pilot sending 100 million isk is meaningless to them. A potential nightmare. B. EVE players are going to be upset if this is a useful Resource for them. If it were needed for Tech 3 ships or something, you will **** off EVE players because "why do they get something that I need so much?!" While I kind of like the idea of the multi-platform, multiple-genre gaming universe, I can completely understand the annoyance of that EVE player. I would be annoyed if I had to play Candy Crush to get Forge Guns or something. C. Big one. In regards to B and other gripes with PC, there are not enough players for this to work. How many DUST accounts log on for an hour a week? How many new accounts are created but then have a playtime of sub 10 hours? You are basing an economy item on a game that has a very bleak future unless something huge happens. Even discounting the fact that DUST is not great enough to stand out, the technology that DUST exists on is out of date. You are trying to connect EVE, a game that continues to grow and change, to a game on a console that will not be supported in another 3 years. It is nice seeing this Roadmap. I hope this means that CCP (again, you) is being honest with us. Whether it is bad or good news, the only thing we want is the truth. And yes, we can bloody well handle it. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 427	Posted - 2015.01.02 22:30:00 - [230] - Quote I'd like to chip in an idea I was thinking about as well on the availability of battles, and giving District owners a chance to become more active in their districts. The basic idea is that when districts are able to make DUST Goo / Warbarge Fuel that it produces X / day. However, this amount can be increased by having a district be set to "Active" (It would require certain privileges to do) When a District is set to "Active" it will remain so for the next 1 hour. (Note this "active" period cannot overlap with that district's "vulnerable" period) During this time it will passively produce an additional sum of DUST Goo / Warbarge Fuel / Clones (Depending on the infrastructure type) To balance this out though the District becomes attackable during this "active" period by anybody who wishes to assault the District, which would cause Planetary Raids to be had. A Planetary Raid would be slightly different from Planetary Conquest in a number of ways: 1) It would be fighting over the resources produce / stockpiled there. A decisive victory could see the entire gain of the "active" period taken 2) A District could not switch hands during an "Active" period, but losses in the District could still make impact in later battles. 3) Planetary Raids would use some format of the Ambush Game Mode. Ideally this game mode would be set up to promote very swift conclusions to the battles, and for the Attacker to walk away with some portion of the product relative to their performance. (Ranging from 0 - 100% of gained product) The overall idea here is to promote Districts as a fighting ground for corps in a way that allows them to fight when they are active and profit from it while also allowing other entities to come and disrupt those activities.

Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2096	Posted - 2015.01.03 00:42:00 - [231] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Just glad that you good people have a clearer idea of what some of the terms in the roadmap Trello now mean. One of the things I'm most looking forward to is a greater sense of being in a Corporation that these features should help usher in. It's always been my hope that a stronger feeling of brotherhood, for lack of a better term, be created and easily maintained by CEO and directors. One of my biggest annoyances about the PC mechanic as it was and still is at the moment, is the fact it was largely an elite few fighting for their own gain and not contributing to the larger corperation membership. Stronger corps in the game are the silver bullet when it comes to player retention. New UI such as corp adverts and finders should help tell new players about player run corps and the benefits they have over the NPC ones. I know I'm speaking for the rest of the CPM when I say we're looking forward to your feedback on all this. At the same time talent pooling is a very real and problematic part of planetary conquest even today. One of my concerns is that by giving 'corp-wide' bonuses to compel people into corps you could very well end up with a stronger incentive for the 'elite' to all just aggregate into one super corp. I'm having flashbacks to when Global Conflict and Betamax Beta did something similar.... Edit: Shame there aren't many around anymore who remember those days... Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2926	Posted - 2015.01.03 03:09:00 - [232] - Quote As nice as reading about all of this is, I am very cautious for good reason. I notice that this is a vision so that generally translates to "prepare to be disappointed". Unless something big happens soon this is basically news to us that Legion is vapour-ware and did not get green-lit. I want the best for DUST514 and for CCP but you have to all admit this is all very very strange considering not too many months ago we were basically told - DUST development would be coming to an end. Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
bloodthrist357 D3ATH CARD RUST415 0	Posted - 2015.01.03 06:28:00 - [233] - Quote Ccp All of yaw is full of it .you telling me u don't know what's going on.I'm sick of it and I'm speaking for all the real gamers. When I say there nothing but cheaters on dust with there mod controller and hackers. you telling me you don't see excessive amount of kills with The combat ,ar and the scrambler. Your slow u can kick me if u want. That why everbody that a real gamer is going to destiny.I know you dont care bcuz your goal and the cheaters are to get the game on a damn computer anyway. obvious you don't play your own damn game Or u wouldn't seen the fufu stuff that's being said and going on.I'm a vet on here and everybody knows what's going on.till you fit it im not going to play.You might as well pull the plug and open up the legion. P.s good money on a game to get ran by lames that really cant play
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1831	Posted - 2015.01.03 09:13:00 - [234] - Quote bloodthrist357 wrote: Ccp All of yaw is full of it .you telling me u don't know what's going on.I'm sick of it and I'm speaking for all the real gamers. When I say there nothing but cheaters on dust with there mod controller and hackers. you telling me you don't see excessive amount of kills with The combat ,ar and the scrambler. Your slow u can kick me if u want. That why everbody that a real gamer is going to destiny.I know you dont care bcuz your goal and the cheaters are to get the game on a damn computer anyway. obvious you don't play your own damn game Or u wouldn't seen the fufu stuff that's being said and going on.I'm a vet on here and everybody knows what's going on.till you fit it im not going to play.You might as well pull the plug and open up the legion. P.s good money on a game to get ran by lames that really cant play Destiny isn't a very good game, It's short, repetitive, lacks content and is ALREADY selling dlc. I'm sorry you're not very good at dust. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Kain Spero Goonfeet 4131	Posted - 2015.01.03 11:15:00 - [235] - Quote One of the other things that caught my eye in the road map was the idea of fixed timers. My understanding from taking to the CPM is that these fixed timers would work just as they do today except you can never adjust them. The current timers would be scrambled and randomized based on the average % of active players online in a given hour, so basically any current district holdings would be nullified. All of this to remove the function of 'hiding' a district from attack. Probably the only real 'abuser' of timer 'hiding' is Nyain San and their ownership share has been decreasing steadily since it's height of over 40% in General Tso down to 20% today with the removal of most passive ISK. Some folks are so keen to fix this problem they seem willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Forcing players into a system that removes their ability to set a time when they feel best capable of playing on the land they own because of a minority of players trying to game the system seems like a vast overreaction. Adding reasonable rules on how timers can be changed? Sure. Removing the ability of adjusting your land's timer entirely? Heck no Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 259	Posted - 2015.01.03 13:08:00 - [236] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: I'd like to chip in an idea I was thinking about as well on the availability of battles, and giving District owners a chance to become more active in their districts. The basic idea is that when districts are able to make DUST Goo / Warbarge Fuel that it produces X / day. However, this amount can be increased by having a district be set to "Active" (It would require certain privileges to do) When a District is set to "Active" it will remain so for the next 1 hour. (Note this "active" period cannot overlap with that district's "vulnerable" period) During this time it will passively produce an additional sum of DUST Goo / Warbarge Fuel / Clones (Depending on the infrastructure type) To balance this out though the District becomes attackable during this "active" period by anybody who wishes to assault the District, which would cause Planetary Raids to be had. A Planetary Raid would be slightly different from Planetary Conquest in a number of ways: 1) It would be fighting over the resources produce / stockpiled there. A decisive victory could see the entire gain of the "active" period taken 2) A District could not switch hands during an "Active" period, but losses in the District could still make impact in later battles. 3) Planetary Raids would use some format of the Ambush Game Mode. Ideally this game mode would be set up to promote very swift conclusions to the battles, and for the Attacker to walk away with some portion of the product relative to their performance. (Ranging from 0 - 100% of gained product) The overall idea here is to promote Districts as a fighting ground for corps in a way that allows them to fight when they are active and profit from it while also allowing other entities to come and disrupt those activities. Though I'm not completely sold on the rest of the proposal, the core idea of defenders being able to make their district immediately vulnerable, with some encouragement to do so, is one of the best ideas I've ever heard for improving PC. (Not a full fix of course, but a potentially very engaging new addition to PC.) A caveat: We'd have to be careful about the execution on the mechanic, else it'll be vulnerable to the same district locking issues we had before.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 508	Posted - 2015.01.04 10:14:00 - [237] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The lynchpin to this step is the introduction of the Warbarge Clone Vats Module (name TBD) where Clonepacks can be built with regular intervals, allowing Corporations without Districts to launch relatively risk free attacks on Districts. These attacks should be initiated from a list of Districts, displaying Timers, Clones, Corporation and other useful statistics and not from the Starmap itself. This part worried me. From my perspective one of the most important things that PC needs to make it feel like you are conquering land, is to Make Location Matter! So getting away from using the Starmap raised a red flag and caused me to reread that paragraph several times. This part worries me as well. I really like the star map, and if anything I think it is under-utilised. Until we know more information, I choose to read his quote as follows: CCP Rattati wrote: The lynchpin to this step is the introduction of the Warbarge Clone Vats Module (name TBD) where Clonepacks can be built with regular intervals, *allowing Corporations without* Districts to launch relatively risk free attacks on Districts. These attacks** should be initiated from a list of Districts, displaying Timers, Clones, Corporation and other useful statistics and not from the Starmap itself. So, if you don't have any districts, you can initiate attacks from a list rather than the star map. If you already have districts, you can use the star map as before. Actually, I would prefer if we can bring up detailed information (I.e list) on the top 10(?) corps for each level of the star map. We already have basic information showing in the lower left corner, which just shows how large percentage each corp has. Imagine if you could press triangle (or something) and get a detailed view as Rattati suggests? A view from which you can also launch attacks from.
Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 746	Posted - 2015.01.05 14:59:00 - [238] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players ...{Lots of stuff about warbarges.} So my take-away from this is one major thing... You are trying to DIVEST (or separate) DUST from EVE even further! First the moar orbital support strikes without needing any EVE players to do it, now the warbarges and district benefits without any need for EVE pilots to be interested in either escorting, blowing them up or gaining any reason to want to participate in DUST at all. Basically you are back-peddaling from the one thing that makes this game a breakthrough in the gaming industry (a cross-over link between an existing PC universe to a console gaming universe) and moving forward with destroying that linkage... The second take-away I get is that you believe there is TOO MUCH ISK in the game and you need to create colossally expensive things like warbarges to "sink away" some of that extra ISK. But since the warbarges don't sound like they will be destroyable, then that sink will only be temporary and the original "faucet" problem that needs to be addressed is still there. Way to go with the for-sight in your roadmap! (That's sarcasm.) In the first 5 seconds of reading it I already see semi-truck sized holes in it. I'm really disappointed in your directors at this point. 8(
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5213	Posted - 2015.01.05 18:32:00 - [239] - Quote Jadd, in some ways, the war barge system may be, in fact, a step closer to EVE in some respects. While there's no plan for war barges to exist in EVE right now, if you recall the discussion of PC 2.0 at EVE Vegas over a year ago, the system they described with EVE/DUST interaction did include war barges. War barges would need to exist in both games to some respect, and the plan laid out was extremely complicated. Starting to create the war barge system in DUST now, and over the next year, may lay down some of the framework to eventually, someday, hopefully have more EVE integration. It's just not the primary focus right now. As a note, the main ISK faucets that were being exploited in the game ARE off. Being passive PC ISK and starter character farming. There's still a lot of ISK in the system, though much of that will burn off over time. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4278	Posted - 2015.01.05 19:26:00 - [240] - Quote I agree. I think War Barges should eventually become an asset that EVE players can interact with in various (and sometimes splodey) ways. However there is a need for a workable system in Dust to properly fix PC, and it is more important that we worry about making that work before linking it to EVE directly. The key of course is to make sure that the system is actually capable of being worked into EVE integration, even if the actual implementation is later down the road. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 750	Posted - 2015.01.06 17:03:00 - [241] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I agree. I think War Barges should eventually become an asset that EVE players can interact with in various (and sometimes splodey) ways. However there is a need for a workable system in Dust to properly fix PC, and it is more important that we worry about making that work before linking it to EVE directly. The key of course is to make sure that the system is actually capable of being worked into EVE integration, even if the actual implementation is later down the road. And doing it separate is the wrong way to do it. If you make it a separate system from the start and then later try to cobble it together with something else later on down the road, you will only doom yourself to failure or lots of hardships. This is the reason that sooo many things in both EVE and DUST are full of bugs and problems. They never had the foresight to look at how things would be implemented later and just kicked that can further down the road for someone else to deal with. That is WRONG! Make the ties ins now, or at least make placeholders for the ties ins now. If not, then you are doing it wrong. But that is all besides the point. The real point is that DUST is slowing migrating AWAY from EVE to make room for Legion which will be the "real" FPS for the EVE universe going forward unfortunately.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4286	Posted - 2015.01.06 19:27:00 - [242] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I agree. I think War Barges should eventually become an asset that EVE players can interact with in various (and sometimes splodey) ways. However there is a need for a workable system in Dust to properly fix PC, and it is more important that we worry about making that work before linking it to EVE directly. The key of course is to make sure that the system is actually capable of being worked into EVE integration, even if the actual implementation is later down the road. And doing it separate is the wrong way to do it. If you make it a separate system from the start and then later try to cobble it together with something else later on down the road, you will only doom yourself to failure or lots of hardships. This is the reason that sooo many things in both EVE and DUST are full of bugs and problems. They never had the foresight to look at how things would be implemented later and just kicked that can further down the road for someone else to deal with. That is WRONG! Make the ties ins now, or at least make placeholders for the ties ins now. If not, then you are doing it wrong. But that is all besides the point. The real point is that DUST is slowing migrating AWAY from EVE to make room for Legion which will be the "real" FPS for the EVE universe going forward unfortunately. I'll use an example from my work. I work in Civil Engineering and we do a lot of residential design work, so designing water supply lines is pretty common. It's also common to build residential developments in phases, rather than all at once. So what happens is that you'll build the water pipe running into Phase 1, and you'll build Phase 1. However we know where Phase 2 is and where the water line for Phase 2 will be. So we'll construct what is commondly reffered to as a "stub" coming off of the Phase 1 water line. It's short, maybe 2-4 feet, and it just has a cap on the end. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't connect to anything. However, what that allows us to do when we construct Phase 2, is we can then easily connect to that stub, rather than trying to tap into the existing line after the fact, tearing up roads, ect. It's much easier, faster, and less expensive to do it this way because 1. Its better to build in phases due to resource allocation and profitability, and 2. By planning ahead and knowing where you're going to connect Phase 2 to Phase 1, you can install this stub which can very easily be tapped into rather that making a mess trying to connect to the existing pipe after the fact. The tl;dr of what I'm getting at is, it's fine to build the game in phases, as long you plan ahead and know how later phases will connect to earlier phases. That way you can just latch the EVE part onto whatever "stub" you've designed and the whole process is very smooth and efficient. So it's fine if there isn't a War Barge EVE connection right away, as long as they have a pretty solid idea of how to impliment it at a later time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 5044	Posted - 2015.01.06 19:30:00 - [243] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Jadd Hatchen wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I agree. I think War Barges should eventually become an asset that EVE players can interact with in various (and sometimes splodey) ways. However there is a need for a workable system in Dust to properly fix PC, and it is more important that we worry about making that work before linking it to EVE directly. The key of course is to make sure that the system is actually capable of being worked into EVE integration, even if the actual implementation is later down the road. And doing it separate is the wrong way to do it. If you make it a separate system from the start and then later try to cobble it together with something else later on down the road, you will only doom yourself to failure or lots of hardships. This is the reason that sooo many things in both EVE and DUST are full of bugs and problems. They never had the foresight to look at how things would be implemented later and just kicked that can further down the road for someone else to deal with. That is WRONG! Make the ties ins now, or at least make placeholders for the ties ins now. If not, then you are doing it wrong. But that is all besides the point. The real point is that DUST is slowing migrating AWAY from EVE to make room for Legion which will be the "real" FPS for the EVE universe going forward unfortunately. I'll use an example from my work. I work in Civil Engineering and we do a lot of residential design work, so designing water supply lines is pretty common. It's also common to build residential developments in phases, rather than all at once. So what happens is that you'll build the water pipe running into Phase 1, and you'll build Phase 1. However we know where Phase 2 is and where the water line for Phase 2 will be. So we'll construct what is commondly reffered to as a "stub" coming off of the Phase 1 water line. It's short, maybe 2-4 feet, and it just has a cap on the end. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't connect to anything. However, what that allows us to do when we construct Phase 2, is we can then easily connect to that stub, rather than trying to tap into the existing line after the fact, tearing up roads, ect. It's much easier, faster, and less expensive to do it this way because 1. Its better to build in phases due to resource allocation and profitability, and 2. By planning ahead and knowing where you're going to connect Phase 2 to Phase 1, you can install this stub which can very easily be tapped into rather that making a mess trying to connect to the existing pipe after the fact. The tl;dr of what I'm getting at is, it's fine to build the game in phases, as long you plan ahead and know how later phases will connect to earlier phases. That way you can just latch the EVE part onto whatever "stub" you've designed and the whole process is very smooth and efficient. So it's fine if there isn't a War Barge EVE connection right away, as long as they have a pretty solid idea of how to impliment it at a later time. Just gonna put this out there, Pokey. That does assume a fair amount about CCP's planning.... Just sayin'. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4286	Posted - 2015.01.06 19:48:00 - [244] - Quote Oh I'm not saying they're great at planning. But Rattati is several degrees less ****** than the Dev team that got us into this mess. So...who knows, it might actually happen this time around. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5237	Posted - 2015.01.06 22:51:00 - [245] - Quote I don't think CCP is anywhere near looking at that on the roadmap, in honesty, noted by the company's clear direction they've spoken about in blogs and media things to focus on making games great individually. But I see the war barge as it's being in developed in DUST right now to be not contradictory to making it appear in EVE later, or any of the ways I would consider it ideal to link DUST and EVE gameplay-wise. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4292	Posted - 2015.01.06 22:56:00 - [246] - Quote To be fair though, I dislike the existence of the Warbarge Strikes in FacWar. I think they should be a Pub Only mechanic. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Darth-Carbonite GIO Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 1391	Posted - 2015.01.07 01:15:00 - [247] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: To be fair though, I dislike the existence of the Warbarge Strikes in FacWar. I think they should be a Pub Only mechanic. This. I was under the impression that the ability to drop orbitals without an Eve pilot was an unintended glitch. Regardless of whether it was truly a mistake or not, it should go back to the way it was. The more reasons for dust bunnies to interact with capsuleers the better. GIMMIE MY PINK LAZOR
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4305	Posted - 2015.01.07 02:40:00 - [248] - Quote Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: To be fair though, I dislike the existence of the Warbarge Strikes in FacWar. I think they should be a Pub Only mechanic. This. I was under the impression that the ability to drop orbitals without an Eve pilot was an unintended glitch. Regardless of whether it was truly a mistake or not, it should go back to the way it was. The more reasons for dust bunnies to interact with capsuleers the better. Indeed. I doubt it was intentionally done but it does need to be fixed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14252	Posted - 2015.01.07 07:57:00 - [249] - Quote I just want to confirm the sentinment in these last few pages. The Warbarge is not just a "PC" gameplay feature. It is meant to be the foundation, or hub of operations. The first foundation is the infrastructure to build on further. We have talked about warbarges existing in space, for eve to kill, and installations that exist in 3d on planets, that could be connected to PI as well. These have fallen through because of the intense complexity of such a feature. I will post a Warbarge feedback thread imminently where we can discuss that outside of the general Roadmap 2015. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14252	Posted - 2015.01.07 08:01:00 - [250] - Quote A little update on the roadmap. We have been arranging some features, as gameplay was deprioritized for the sake of infrastructure development, mainly cloud hosting of battleservers and preparation of increased salvage, and salvage based rewards in all ToW (theatres of war, PC, FW and Pub). We have not sat idly, however, and have created a boatload of content, but as that is not "development", it is not demonstrated on the roadmap. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2206	Posted - 2015.01.07 08:56:00 - [251] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I just want to confirm the sentinment in these last few pages. The Warbarge is not just a "PC" gameplay feature. It is meant to be the foundation, or hub of operations. The first foundation is the infrastructure to build on further. We have talked about warbarges existing in space, for eve to kill, and installations that exist in 3d on planets, that could be connected to PI as well. These have fallen through because of the intense complexity of such a feature. I will post a Warbarge feedback thread imminently where we can discuss that outside of the general Roadmap 2015. Echoing this I would have to say that I wasn't keen or understanding as to the Warbarge concept when Rattati brought it to the CPMs attention. But as the benefits of them in terms of their use as foundations for more infrastructure became clear, especially as not just a 'PC' asset, I've been sold in them. I'm really looking forward to the feedback thread when Rattati posts it. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
John Psi Vacuum Cleaner. LLC Steel Balls Alliance 1120	Posted - 2015.01.07 09:06:00 - [252] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: mainly cloud hosting of battleservers very curious - what it means? Please support fair play!
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 6226	Posted - 2015.01.07 11:47:00 - [253] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I just want to confirm the sentinment in these last few pages. The Warbarge is not just a "PC" gameplay feature. It is meant to be the foundation, or hub of operations. The first foundation is the infrastructure to build on further. We have talked about warbarges existing in space, for eve to kill, and installations that exist in 3d on planets, that could be connected to PI as well. These have fallen through because of the intense complexity of such a feature. I will post a Warbarge feedback thread imminently where we can discuss that outside of the general Roadmap 2015. Rattati, I am intensely interested in warbarges now. Before this post I was under the impression that warbarges were purely a PC-corp toy; I have a small desire to dip my toe in PC after Not Uprising 1.0, but not enough to pursue a warbarge. Now I feel like it will be a valuable form of progression. Like Kevell, I can't wait for the feedback thread. Just call me Ripple. Ripple Riley. @Ripley_Riley
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3451	Posted - 2015.01.07 13:26:00 - [254] - Quote As a general item like your "home" makes this a lot more intresting and might finally give a sense of ownership that dust players don't get experience compared to EvE Gÿ¦ You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 817	Posted - 2015.01.07 14:08:00 - [255] - Quote Just a quick thought that I had concerning Warbarges and battling. Clone Storage: I think it would be interesting for warbarges to hold the purchasable clone packs "within" the asset. Initially, warbarges would only be able to hold 150 clones within the barge. This, of course, could be upgraded through modules. I think that this would add immersion to the game, and leads into the next idea Transit Mode: Currently, to my knowledge, a corp can buy a clone pack and use it to launch an attack wherever they'd like. It's not a great method of attack because 150 clones isn't enough to do much, but it destroys the idea of "location matters". Instead of launching a long range attack via clone pack (the current system), corporations would have to move their warbarge within range of a long distance planet to attack the districts on the planet. Transit mode can be planned out through the star map, where a director could choose the route that the warbarge would take, how many jumps the barge would need to make, how much fuel the trip would cost, etc. The director could then initiate the trip, and watch the progress of the journey through the starmap (with the current interplanetary district line, or planet, highlighted). Transit mode could be initiated for as many warbarges as the corporation owns, so that large corps or alliances can launch many long ranged attacks if they would like. Inter-Transit Interactions (Districts, and Warbarge Battling): Long-distance travel will use fuel, and possibly deal wear and tear damage to the warbage. After every jump between planets, the director would receive a notification of the fuel use and damage done to the barge. These problems could be fixed by docking with a planet/district and refueling and repairing the warbarge. Of course, "Warbarge Repair Station" and "Warbarge Refueling Station" could be installations that districts place on them, such that some corporations could focus on something other than war. Refueling or Repairing the barge would make the barge vulnerable for as long as the operation was active. During this time the warbarge could initiate an attack on the district, or the district could initiate an attack on the warbarge (Requires the "Warbarge Map" that Rattati talked about) to claim it. This would emphasize the "This is New Eden" feeling of DUST, where you aren't ever safe - even when you're refueling Additionally, during a warbarge's journey, you might come within range of another warbarge that is also traveling the same route. If two warbarges will be within range, a notification will be sent to the directors of both barges, and a timer will pop up that represents when the two barges are "within range" to launch an attack - calling up a "Warbarge v. Warbarge Map". In this battle, the attacking warbarge would use its equipped weapons to deal damage to the enemy warbarge while also trying to clone out the other team. There would be no objectives in this map. Warbarges could have modules (or hulls) that are designed for warbarge battling (Large cannons that deal more damage over time), or avoiding battles (Dampeners that prevents warbarges from picking up your own. Personally, this would be a ton of fun for someone like me Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Soldner VonKuechle SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 1185	Posted - 2015.01.07 16:16:00 - [256] - Quote John Psi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: mainly cloud hosting of battleservers very curious - what it means? if i understand it correctly, CoD style lobbies, and LAG SWITCHING. mwah hahahaha oh the irony! or ive missed it completely and this is DUST trying to salvage the 'brain in a box' idea from EVE. not sure, coffee hasnt kicked in yet Why are all of you so intellectually inept?
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 700	Posted - 2015.01.07 19:56:00 - [257] - Quote John Psi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: mainly cloud hosting of battleservers very curious - what it means? Lag, and an avenue of plausible deniability for CCP. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 701	Posted - 2015.01.07 20:26:00 - [258] - Quote That being said, I've been reading this thread and see some nice ideas. 1. PC battles being composed of more than basically a skirm. 2. Corps having a physical asset that they need to maintain and improve. 3. Said asset providing the fundamental features long missing and requested: training ranges, social walkaround spaces, physical location continuity between corpmates between matches etc. 4. PC district ownership gleaning some sort of commodity reward, whether generating raw manufacturing materials or perhaps allowing for some space asset EVE side to be enabled once the surface is held. Just something besides generating clones to attack districts to generate clones to lather/rinse/repeat 5. Said commodity being available as an incentive/reward for successful PC battles, district flipping not required. (Becomes the means to "Reaver" without being an "Empiricist" as well as creates a second reward for successful "Corp Battles") I see that PC timers are getting some discussion, idk how I feel about what I see suggested. " Fixed" timers definitely seem like they would lend themselves to locking, "Variable" timers won't allow for any stability of holdings and "No" timers won't allow for holdings at all. Maybe a solution could be created through creating new district reinforcement infrastructure, basically " auto-defenses" that would eliminate any enemy fleet as it enters low orbit (auto-kills the barge) , maybe in 4hour blocks, so a corp could (potentially, and for substantial expense) "lock" a critical district for 24 hours but leave less critical regions "open" for 12 hours and leave others completely un-auto-defended and available for attack at any time. So, still sort of timered but with a financial element that limits any corp from possessing huge swathes of real estate without that property costing anything. Hell, maybe 5 hour blocks so to "lock" the overlap of time = isk wasted, but to not lock means a 5(!) hour window attacks can be staged in. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10694	Posted - 2015.01.08 04:14:00 - [259] - Quote John Psi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: mainly cloud hosting of battleservers very curious - what it means? I'm curious about how that works as well. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
John Psi Vacuum Cleaner. LLC Steel Balls Alliance 1126	Posted - 2015.01.08 04:25:00 - [260] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: John Psi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: mainly cloud hosting of battleservers very curious - what it means? I'm curious about how that works as well. I imagine that such a cloud storage, but what is the cloud battleserver? because it must be powerful machine with stable channel... Please support fair play!

steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3455	Posted - 2015.01.08 06:56:00 - [261] - Quote Likely in the same method as the xbox live cloud. Which for me at least works freakishly well.... but I can't see how ccp can cloud up ps3s because building their own one would defeat the point =ƒÿå You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 244	Posted - 2015.01.08 07:37:00 - [262] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ....and preparation of increased salvage, and salvage based rewards in all ToW (theatres of war, PC, FW and Pub). I'm curious Ratti, does the above+the presence of a salvager role on the roadmap potentially imply some new salvage gameplay mechanic? Like actually having people salvage the battlefield following or during a battle are you thinking along similar lines as the current strongbox feature by simple adding to an existing feature? Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1151	Posted - 2015.01.08 09:47:00 - [263] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: A little update on the roadmap. We have been arranging some features, as gameplay was deprioritized for the sake of infrastructure development, mainly cloud hosting of battleservers and preparation of increased salvage, and salvage based rewards in all ToW (theatres of war, PC, FW and Pub). We have not sat idly, however, and have created a boatload of content, but as that is not "development", it is not demonstrated on the roadmap. You sir have my attention and I am egerly awaiting a dev-blog sometime February! :) SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 897	Posted - 2015.01.08 10:08:00 - [264] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We have been arranging some features, as gameplay was deprioritized for the sake of infrastructure development While you're on the topic of infrastructure: Is there any way for you to influence the amount of time it takes to load the team-chat? Every time I spawn into a match and start looking for a squad to join it takes a good 10-15 seconds until I can actually see which squads are on my team. Please excuse my interruption if by the term "infrastructure" you are referring to completely unrelated concepts. This just my latest pet-peeve and I felt like mentioning it.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5683	Posted - 2015.01.08 20:04:00 - [265] - Quote Multistage Approach to taking Districts in PC I would like to propose a Planetary Conquest winning condition revamp to make Clones a secondary wining condition rather than the primary winning condition as they are in PC now. This is based on a well known proposal for FW made over a year ago. Multi Stage Approach: - Phase 1 (Beachhead): Modified Ambush match to take a beachhead. 15 minute notification to the defenders (No timer). 8 v 8 battle, with 50 clones available (Possibly give the defenders 60 or 70 clones) After 5 minutes a CRU is dropped. The attacking team needs to hack the CRU and hold it for 3 minutes, or clone the defenders to win. If the attackers win, then the 24 hour timber is started. If the defenders win, there are no further battles. - Phase 2 (Take down the Defense Network): If the Attackers win the Beachhead, then after a timer there will be a Domination style match, where the attackers are trying to take out the defender's District Defense Computer. 16 v 16 with 180 clones. Only the Attackers have an MCC. The defenders hold the point at the start of the match, and the Null cannons fire at the attacker's MCC as long as the Defenders control the point. When the Attackers hack the objective the Null cannons stop firing and after 5 minutes the virus will take out the District Defense Computer. So attackers need to hold the point for 5 minutes to win. Defenders need to destroy the attacker's MCC to win. If the attackers win, a timer for Phase 3 begins. If the defenders win the match is followed by a 16 v 16 Ambush match 5 minutes later where the defenders have to drive out the last holdouts from the attacking force. If the attackers win the Ambush match, then it spawns a new Domination match after 5 minutes. - Phase 3 (Final Push): Once the District Defense Network is down, control of the Null cannons revert to the local terminals, and the Defenders have to stage from an MCC. So you have a standard Skirmish match. If the attackers win they get the District. If the Defenders win, they can reboot their District Defense Network, and 5 minutes later a Phase 2 Domination match begins. - Summery: To take a district you must win an Ambush, timer, Domination, timer, Skirmish. To defend a district you must drive them back in revers order and win the final Ambush. Battle progression happens over 3 days. First Ambush is immediate, then Dom after a timber, then Skirm after a timber. There is only 5 minutes between battles when the Defenders win and the progression goes back a step. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
DJINN Jecture BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 185	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:32:00 - [266] - Quote YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!! IMO market should be a priority, with all items listed in the topic, great plan guys! How long til this hits PC?
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 812	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:18:00 - [267] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Multistage Approach to taking Districts in PC I would like to propose a Planetary Conquest winning condition revamp to make Clones a secondary wining condition rather than the primary winning condition as they are in PC now. This is based on Aero Yassavi's well known proposal for Multi Stage Faction Warfare Battles. Multi Stage Approach: - Phase 1 (Beachhead): Modified Ambush match to take a beachhead. 15 minute notification to the defenders (No timer). 8 v 8 battle, with 50 clones available to the attackers and 70 available to the defenders. The attacking Warbarge drops a CRU from orbit which provides 50 clones for the attackers to take a Beachhead in the district. After 5 minutes the Warbarge drops a Field Command Center (FCC) (Supply Depot art asset). The Attackers must hack the FCC to activate it, and protect it for 3 minutes until it comes fully online. When the FCC comes fully online it activates a powerful shield (attackers red line), begins to jam the Districts defense radar and broadcasting a homing signal, so that the attackers can safely bring in their MCC. This starts the timer for the next phase. The defenders can win by destroying the FCC, cloning the attackers, or by hacking/destroying the CRU and destroying all Uplinks to deny the attackers access to the District (drive them off the beach). - Phase 2 (Take down the Defense Network): If the Attackers win the Beachhead, then after a timer there will be a Domination style match, where the attackers are trying to take out the defender's District Defense Network. 16 v 16 with 180 clones. Only the Attackers have an MCC. The defenders hold the point at the start of the match, and the Null cannons fire at the attacker's MCC as long as the Defenders control the point. When the Attackers hack the objective the Null cannons stop firing and after 5 minutes the virus will take out the District Defense Network. So attackers need to hold the point for 5 minutes to win. Defenders need to destroy the attacker's MCC to win. If the attackers win, a timer for Phase 3 begins. If the defenders win the match is followed by a 16 v 16 Ambush match 5 minutes later where the defenders have to drive out the last holdouts from the attacking force. If the attackers win the Ambush match, then it spawns a new Domination match after 5 minutes. - Phase 3 (Final Push): Once the District Defense Network is down, control of the Null cannons revert to the local terminals, and the Defenders have to stage from an MCC. So you have a standard Skirmish match. If the attackers win they get the District. If the Defenders win, they can reboot their District Defense Network, and 5 minutes later a Phase 2 Domination match begins. - Summery: To take a district you must win an Ambush, timer, Domination, timer, Skirmish. To defend a district you must drive them back in revers order and win the final Ambush. Battle progression happens over 3 days. First Ambush is immediate, then Dom after a timber, then Skirm after a timber. There is only 5 minutes between battles when the Defenders win and the progression goes back a step. The timer only comes into play when the attackers have pushed the attack into the next phase. - Narrative: To take a district you have to win a Beachhead, Take down the District Defense Computer, and Push the defenders out of the District. MCC Attrition: The Attackers need an MCC for Phase 2 and Phase 3. If the Attackers lose Phase 2 or Phase 3 they lose a Warbarge, but as long as they have a replacement Warbarge, and have not been pushed off the Beachhead, they can continue to press the attack. However, if they run out of MCC's the attack is over. Defenders only need 1 MCC to defend a district as it is only used in Phase 3, and if they lose Phase 3 they lose the district. If the Defenders do not have an MCC the Attackers capture the District when they win Phase 2. A player owned MCC carries up to 180 clones (as apposed to 150 for the MCC used in Public matches) as participants in Planetary Conquest are generally more efficient at killing clones, and we don't want cloning to be the primary strategy for wining Phase 2 and Phase 3 matches. If there are less than 180 clones remaining on the Warbarge, or in the District, then the MCC will hold all remaining clones. When an MCC blows up all remaining clones are destroyed, but biomass may be salvageable. Clone Attrition: While clone attrition would not be the primary wining condition of PC matches anymore, if the attackers or defenders do run out of clones, they lose. Clone Attrition will become a factor if a district is not adequately stocked with clones, or if both the attackers and defenders are winning battles and it goes back and forth a few time, resulting in more than the minimum 3 matches required to take a district. Each match uses a limited amount of clones, but those clones come out of the total clone count for the District. Surviving clones are returned to the District or Warbarge at the end of the match, with the exception of a successful raid where the surviving defender clones go to the Raiders. Edit: Rewrote this in my PC proposal thread, so I copied the new version here as well. I put this in the Planetary Conquest Thread, bits and pieces of it "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Sequal's Back Intara Direct Action Caldari State 203	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:54:00 - [268] - Quote Wait wait wait.. Is it real or am I dreaming? Did I just see "New GameMode(s)" for 1.1? Rise? That's what they used to call me. Sequal Rise. That was my name. Now I come Back to you, at the turn of the tide.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 453	Posted - 2015.02.03 20:34:00 - [269] - Quote Rattati, is there a trello board for the bugs in the game and their priorities? Making threads with bug reports in bugs section is proving very unfruitful so far. Support tickets are being replied to with instructions to make threads in the bug reports section.
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 877	Posted - 2015.02.07 02:47:00 - [270] - Quote The roadmap looks great. The biggest question I have is related to the aging hardware Dust is played on. I understand production of the PS3 is set to stop in the near future. CCP has been very quiet about this since Legion was 'announced'. I think development of Dust suffers by being limited to a near decade old technology. Dust already has a reputation of being somewhat unstable, I worry that adding more and more and more content will only make that worse. Eventually we have to talk about where this game is going. In a different post I mentioned how I'd still like to see CCP resolve the legal issues with microsoft and make Legion the first cross-platform game on the next (current) gen consoles. Legion on the PC would be a huge improvement, but I think it would still remain a fairly 'underground' game. Porting to both current gen consoles would at least double the player base right off the bat, assuming the XBOX community is roughly the same size as the PS community. And upon that happening, no doubt droves of previous Dust players would come back. From there the playerbase growth could accelerate even further. Tapping into the consoles for an FPS certainly reaches to a much larger audience. From that point, you've got a larger player base (more money) and better tech to develop on, allowing much more rapid improvement on the game, which then draws more players. BAM. Who cares what some sniper has to say


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16856	Posted - 2015.02.07 03:00:00 - [271] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Rattati, is there a trello board for the bugs in the game and their priorities? Making threads with bug reports in bugs section is proving very unfruitful so far. Support tickets are being replied to with instructions to make threads in the bug reports section. EDIT: Aeon has a trello board with documented bugs. https://trello.com/b/VzGF18nc/anomaly-investigations-and-verification-task-board Devs, please use it, too. I talked to Aeon yesterday, reviewing all those bugs, and will continue to do so. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Force Seventrum Mikanomic Force 35	Posted - 2015.02.09 15:02:00 - [272] - Quote Mhh Roadmap 2015 ... suddenly 1.2 apeared :) anyone noticed? Actually Q2 is schedualed for this item. Beforhand 1.1 was. CCP DUST team are you following the same update cycles like EVE atm? Need more ... new stuff... will pay ... throwing money at screen Green Light EVE:Legion!
Soldner VonKuechle SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 1527	Posted - 2015.02.09 15:05:00 - [273] - Quote !!!!!!! There is now a "market place " card in 1.1s tab. !!!!!!!!!!! Is this a player one, or a drastic redesign of the current one? I'm a Bitter-Hopeful-Angry-Pleased-Pragmatic-Resourceful-Annoying-Rainman-Chiller-Stupid-Tricky Vet. Pick one for today.
thehellisgoingon MONSTER SYNERGY 209	Posted - 2015.02.17 00:42:00 - [274] - Quote Simple trading have any insurance? Scam protection? How much aur?
Freccia di Lybra Simple Trading Union 523	Posted - 2015.02.18 21:08:00 - [275] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Everything seems very exciting like always. BUT i've recently started to play some PC when corp is out of mercs. When facing other EU corps framerate is comparable to public, when facing other continents corps framerate drops dramaticaly. Probably give fixed timers will partially fix this issue, but you need to look at technical question before everything else imo. This is a old video, but things are still like this, PC need to be equal on the technical side. May any dev at CCP answer this ^. There would be no point in changing PC mechanics if PC matches are unplayable or unfair because of framerate and lag. Ei fu, xxwhitedevilxx former Co-CEO Maphia Clan Corporation / Unit Unicorn
Pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1611	Posted - 2015.02.21 12:14:00 - [276] - Quote Freccia di Lybra wrote: shaman oga wrote: Everything seems very exciting like always. BUT i've recently started to play some PC when corp is out of mercs. When facing other EU corps framerate is comparable to public, when facing other continents corps framerate drops dramaticaly. Probably give fixed timers will partially fix this issue, but you need to look at technical question before everything else imo. This is a old video, but things are still like this, PC need to be equal on the technical side. May any dev at CCP answer this ^. There would be no point in changing PC mechanics if PC matches are unplayable or unfair because of framerate and lag. Bumping this question One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!
grom 801 Gal Vorbak Empire 15	Posted - 2015.02.23 09:45:00 - [277] - Quote -æ-É-¢-É-¥-í -ƒ-ÿ-ƒ-ò-ª ,-¥-É-º-É-¢-¼-¥-½-ò -í-Ü-É-ñ-É-¥-ö-á-½ -ƒ-á-P-ó-ÿ-Æ -ƒ-á-P-ó-P-ó-ÿ-ƒ-P-Æ
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 294	Posted - 2015.02.23 16:32:00 - [278] - Quote Sequal's Back wrote: Wait wait wait.. Is it real or am I dreaming? Did I just see "New GameMode(s)" for 1.1? It would be good if we could hear what you have in mind for the new modes ccp. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
DiablosMajora Shining Flame Amarr Empire 29	Posted - 2015.02.25 00:21:00 - [279] - Quote Now that we have Warbarges, can we customize them in such a way to spend WP in matches for our own selves, or maybe the squad? a) chosen Warbarge strike available, corresponding to particular weapon module(s) equipped on the Warbarge. b) ability to orbitally drop installations of our choice (such as CRU, Turret, or Supply Depot) depending on what we have loaded as a module in the Warbarge. Prepare your angus
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 850	Posted - 2015.02.25 00:42:00 - [280] - Quote @Aeon I would change the "Fade due to inactivity" setting on the board right now. The cards look like they have been 'archived' to anyone who doesn't know about the feature, which is most people I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy

XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 393	Posted - 2015.03.02 02:30:00 - [281] - Quote DiablosMajora wrote: Now that we have Warbarges, can we customize them in such a way to spend WP in matches for our own selves, or maybe the squad? a) chosen Warbarge strike available, corresponding to particular weapon module(s) equipped on the Warbarge. b) ability to orbitally drop installations of our choice (such as CRU, Turret, or Supply Depot) depending on what we have loaded as a module in the Warbarge. Yes, I believe we had b) before but they took it out. It would be an interesting change to a "dynamic battlefield." Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment, Free BPOs!
grom 801 Gal Vorbak Empire 16	Posted - 2015.03.03 09:01:00 - [282] - Quote -¦-+ -¦-ü-¦-à -¦-ï-+-ï-ê-+-¦-+-+-ï-à -¦-ü-¦-+-¦-+-+-ï-à -+-+-¦-Ä-é-ü-Å -¦-¦-¦ -¦-¦-ü-¦-+-é -é-¦-¦ -+ -é-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -é-¦-¦ -¦-¦ -é-Å-¦-¦-+-ï-¦ -Ç-+-¦-+-é-ï ,-ü-é-¦-Ç -¦-¦-Ç-ü ,-¦-¦-+-é-¦-à -¦-¦-+-¦-¦ -¦-ü-é-î -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦ -é-¦-¦ -+ -¦-Ç-â-¦-+-¦ -+-+-ç-¦-+-â -¦-¦ -¦ DUST -+-¦-é -¦-+ -ü-+-à -+-+-Ç -é-+-¦-¦ -é-+-¦-¦ -¦-¦-¦-+-à -é-+ -Ç-+-¦-+-é-+-¦ ??? -+-+-Ç-ï -¦-ï -¦-¦-¦-ü-é-+ -ç-é-+ -ü-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-¦ -+-¦-¦-¦-â -é-¦-+-¦-+-+ -+ -¦-¦-+-+-+-+ -+-+ -ü-¦-+-Ç-+-ü-é-+ -+ -+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-¦ -+-+-ë-+
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 302	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:00 - [283] - Quote Why are jetbikes or fighters on the roadmap grrrr (kinda half joking). Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
grom 801 Gal Vorbak Empire 16	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:33:00 - [284] - Quote -+-+-ç-¦-+-â -+-¦-é -+-ü-¦-+-Ä-ç-¦-+-+-Å ???? -+-+-+ -¦-¦-+ -+-¦ -¦-¦-+-î ???-ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+-Å -é-Ç-¦-é-+-¦ -¦-+-¦ -+-+-+-¦-¦-¦-Ä -ü VICTOR LEONARD -¦ -+-¦-+-+ -¦-+-¦ ,-ì-é-+-é -ç-¦-+-+-¦-¦-¦ -â-¦-+-¦-¦-¦-é -ü-¦-+-+-à -¦ -¦-+-+-¦-+-¦-¦ ,-+ -+-¦ -é-+-+-î-¦-+ -+-¦-+-Å !!! -+-+-ü-+-¦ -ü-+-¦-Ç-é-+ -+ -¦-+-+-Ç-+-¦-¦-¦-+-+-Å -Å -¦-+-¦-¦-+ -¦-¦-¦ -+-+ -â-¦-+-+ -¦-ë-¦ -¦-+-¦-+ -é-+ -¦ -+-+-é-+-+ -¦-+-¦-Ç-â-¦ -+-â-ê-¦-+ -¦-¦-¦-¦-+ -+-¦ -¦-Ç-â-¦-+-+ -ç-¦-+-+-¦-¦-¦-+-+ ,-Å -+-+-+-+-¦ -+-¦-ê-¦-+-â -ü-+-Ä-+-+-+-¦-â -+ -â-¦-+-+ VICTOR LEONARD -Å -¦-â-+-¦-Ä -+-+ -+-Ç-+-+-¦-Ç-+-+ -+-¦-+-+-+ 6 -+-+-+ 8 -ç-¦-+-¦-¦-¦-¦ -â-¦-+-+ -¦ -ü-+-+-+-â -é-¦-¦ -+-+-ç-¦-+-â -+-+ -¦-ü-¦ -é-¦-¦ -¦-¦ -+-Ç-+-¦-+-+-¦-¦-¦-é -¦-¦-¦-¦-é-î -¦ -¦-+-Ä -+ -â-¦-+-¦-¦-é-î -ü-¦-+-+-à ?? -+-â -¦-¦ -Å -+-¦-¦-¦-+ -+-¦-¦-¦-+-¦-é-î -¦ -é-+-+-¦-â ? -+-+ -¦-ü-¦ -Ç-¦-¦-+-+ -¦-¦-¦-¦-¦-é -+ -â-¦-+-¦-¦-¦-é -ü-¦-+-+-à ,-¦-+-¦-¦-¦ -¦ -+-+-¦-+-¦-+-ï-+ -+-Ä-¦-Å-+ -¦-â-¦-â-é -+-Ç-+-+-¦-+-Å-é-ü-Å -ü-¦-Ç-î-¦-+-+-ï-¦ -+-¦-¦-¦-+-¦-+-+-Å ? -¦-+-+-â-ü-é-+-+ -â-¦-+-+ 3 -¦ -+-¦-+-+-+ -¦-+-Ä -¦-ü-¦ -+-ü-¦-+-Ä-ç-+-+-+ -+-+ -¦-+-Å -¦ -â-¦-+-+ 6 -+-¦ -¦-¦-+-î -¦-ü-¦ -æ-É-¥ -+-¦ -ü-â-é-¦-+ !!!!-Ç-¦-+-¦-¦ -+-+-¦-+-+ -+-¦-¦-Ç-¦-¦-é-î -+-+-¦-¦-¦-â -¦-+-¦-¦-¦ -¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-¦-¦-¦-¦-¦-Ä-é -+ -ü-é-Ç-¦-+-Å-Ä-é -¦ -ü-+-+-+-â -ü-+-Ä-+-+-+-¦-+
grom 801 Gal Vorbak Empire 16	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:52:00 - [285] - Quote -¦ -ü-+-¦-¦-Ä-â-ë-¦-+ -¦-+-Ä -¦-¦-¦ -+-+ -ü-é-Ç-¦-+-+-+ -ç-¦-+-+-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-¦ -+-+-¦-+-+ Victor Leonard -é-¦-¦-¦-¦ -¦-ï-+ -¦ -+-¦-ê-¦-¦ -¦-+-+-¦-+-¦-¦ -+ -+-Ç-+-¦-+-+-¦-¦-+ -â-¦-+-¦-¦-é-î -ü-¦-+-+-à ,-+-¦-+-Å -+-+ -â-¦-+-+ 4 -Ç-¦-+-¦ ,-é-+ -¦-ü-é-î -ì-é-+ -+-¦ -ü-+-â-ç-¦-¦-+-+-ü-é-î -+ -+-¦-+-¦-Ç-¦-+-+-+-¦ -â-¦-+-¦-ü-é-¦-+ -ü-+-Ä-+-+-+-¦-+-¦ ,-é-¦-¦-+-à -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-+-¦ -+-â-¦-+-+ -¦-¦-+-+-é-î -+ -¦-Ç-¦-é-î -ü -+-+-à -ü-é-+-+-+-+-ü-é-î -â-+-+-ç-é-+-¦-¦-+-+-+-¦-+ -+-¦-+-Ç-â-¦-¦-¦-¦-+-+-Å -ü-+-Ä-+-+-+-¦-¦ -¦ -¦-ü-+ -ì-é-+ -¦-â-+-+-¦-+-+-ï-¦ -ç-¦-Ç-é-¦-¦ -é-+ -¦-+-+-+-¦-+-ü-¦-å-+-Å -¦-+-¦-+-+-¦-+-ç-+-+-¦-+ -+-¦-+-Ç-â-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Å -ü -Ç-ï-+-¦-¦ -+-¦ -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-â-Ä -¦-¦-+-Ä-é-â ,-é-¦-¦-¦-¦ -¦ -+-¦-ë-â-Ä -ü-é-¦-é-+-ü-é-+-¦-â -ü-+-¦-Ç-é-+-+-ü-é-+ -é-¦-¦-+-¦ -â-¦-+-¦-ü-é-¦-¦ -+-¦ -¦-+-+-¦-+-ï -+-¦-é-+ -+ -+-+-ê-î -¦-+-¦-¦-¦ -¦-ï-+ -â-¦-+-é -¦-Ç-¦-¦-+-+
Flint Beastgood III Dead Man's Game RUST415 1509	Posted - 2015.03.16 09:44:00 - [286] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: We have been arranging some features, as gameplay was deprioritized for the sake of infrastructure development While you're on the topic of infrastructure: Is there any way for you to influence the amount of time it takes to load the team-chat? Every time I spawn into a match and start looking for a squad to join it takes a good 10-15 seconds until I can actually see which squads are on my team. Yeah, this is soooo annoying. It's bad enough that it takes ~10secs to spawn after the spawn counter has already hit zero, but then I have to wait even longer to find a squad to join? Ugh. On a sidenote, I thought the pre-fight warbarge was being brought back to pubs so we could squad up before deploying? I see it for a split second now, but that's it, even though sometimes I can see it shows X seconds on the timer in the corner before throwing me into the match anyway. Skills - https://www.facebook.com/notes/flint-beastgood-iii/list-of-trained-skills/416505058477164
Calanorn Blamed Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:16:00 - [287] - Quote The reason I paid to join the open beta was the transgaming aspect of Dust. The cool aspect was not the weapons, or the dropsuits, or the interesting customization options for the dropsuits, though those are all very cool. No, the thing that interested me most was the interplay between the games. Unfortunately this interplay is minimal at best. Some pilot chat, and orbital strikes in faction warfare are about all there is, with a little advantage to Eve pilots if their faction controls a planet. I realize the difficulty in making games dependent, but how about making them complementary? Start small, with a pirate station map, and contracts that can be issued by mission runner pilots of EVE. Newer Eve pilots in high sec could offer contracts to take over and plunder the stations, while pirate NPC captains could offer defense contracts. Eve pilots would receive special blueprints or more fragile loot that would normally be destroyed with the station destruction. The Pilots could offer bonuses to dust players for acquisition of such loot., such as keys in the arum store for the locked canisters that the dust pilots find as salvage. These contracts could be listed under "other" and be in addition to the contracts already in existence.
cupcake666 Dust 514 Elite Ops 0	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:58:00 - [288] - Quote I'm sorry to bring this up if it has been discussed somewhere else but I have not been able to find it. is there going to be a fix that lets us know what we actually receive from the experimental weapons laboratory. maybe like the window that pops up after opening an encrypted lock box.So far I have probably dropped about 3000 warbarge components and all I can tell as I've gotten three experimental weapons. Considering how much war barge components cost through aur it's a very very poor exchange rates especially if I'm receiving only standard weapons instead of experimentals. what gives? believe this should be fixed or I'm not claiming any of those weapons anymore.
Thor Odinson42 Negative-Feedback 6263	Posted - 2015.03.19 01:33:00 - [289] - Quote cupcake666 wrote: I'm sorry to bring this up if it has been discussed somewhere else but I have not been able to find it. is there going to be a fix that lets us know what we actually receive from the experimental weapons laboratory. maybe like the window that pops up after opening an encrypted lock box.So far I have probably dropped about 3000 warbarge components and all I can tell as I've gotten three experimental weapons. Considering how much war barge components cost through aur it's a very very poor exchange rates especially if I'm receiving only standard weapons instead of experimentals. what gives? believe this should be fixed or I'm not claiming any of those weapons anymore. I agree that it's needed, but here are some tips for finding your stuff. 1. Roden Sniper Rifle, can only be found in the fitting menu when looking in your assets to fit a different weapon 2. Dropsuits, officer suits drop from the lab. Go to Light->Scout, Medium-> Logi & Assault, Heavy-> Sentinal & Commando. If you scroll all the way to the bottom of each that's where you'd find the officer suits. 3. Sidearms, it also drops officer sidearms
grom 801 Gal Vorbak Empire 16	Posted - 2015.03.20 07:22:00 - [290] - Quote -+-+-ü-+-¦ -¦-+-Å -¦-ï-+-¦-¦-¦-¦-é -+-¦-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦ -Ç-¦-+-+-+-ç-+-ï-à -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-+-¦ -+ -+-+-¦ -+-+-+-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦-+-¦ -¦ -¦-+-¦-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-+ ,-+-+-ç-¦-+-â -¦-+-¦-¦-¦ -+-é-¦-Ç-ï-¦-¦-¦-ê-î -+-¦-ê-+-ä-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-+-ï-¦ -ü-¦-¦-ä -+-¦-é -+-+-¦-+-¦-+-+-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-+ ??? -+-¦ -¦-ü-¦-¦-¦-¦ -+-+ -+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ -+-+-+-Å-é-+-+ -ç-é-+ -é-ï -+-é-¦-Ç-ï-+ ,-¦-+-¦-¦-¦-î-é-¦ -¦ -+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-ä-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-â -+-+-+-â-ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦-+ -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦

grom 801 Gal Vorbak Empire 16	Posted - 2015.03.23 06:48:00 - [291] - Quote -¦ eve online -¦-ü-é-î -+ -¦-¦-Ä-é-¦ -+ -¦-+-¦-¦-Ç ,-+-+-ç-¦-+-â -¦ dust -+-¦-é -¦-+-¦-¦-Ç-¦ -¦-¦-¦ -+-¦-à-+-¦-+-+-ü-Å -¦-ï -é-Ç-¦-+-ü-+-+-Ç-é ??
Thokk Nightshade Montana Militia 805	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:03:00 - [292] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: cupcake666 wrote: I'm sorry to bring this up if it has been discussed somewhere else but I have not been able to find it. is there going to be a fix that lets us know what we actually receive from the experimental weapons laboratory. maybe like the window that pops up after opening an encrypted lock box.So far I have probably dropped about 3000 warbarge components and all I can tell as I've gotten three experimental weapons. Considering how much war barge components cost through aur it's a very very poor exchange rates especially if I'm receiving only standard weapons instead of experimentals. what gives? believe this should be fixed or I'm not claiming any of those weapons anymore. I agree that it's needed, but here are some tips for finding your stuff. 1. Roden Sniper Rifle, can only be found in the fitting menu when looking in your assets to fit a different weapon 2. Dropsuits, officer suits drop from the lab. Go to Light->Scout, Medium-> Logi & Assault, Heavy-> Sentinal & Commando. If you scroll all the way to the bottom of each that's where you'd find the officer suits. 3. Sidearms, it also drops officer sidearms Yes, it was mentioned in the update guide. When you get your weapons from the Warbarge, a popup will tell you what you are getting and how many. Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.
grom 801 Gal Vorbak Empire 16	Posted - 2015.04.30 06:16:00 - [293] - Quote -¦ -+-Ç-+-¦-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å-¦-+-+-+-ü-î -ü-¦-+-+-ï ,-¦ -¦-¦-¦ -¦-+-¦-ê-+-+-¦ -¦-+-¦ -ü-¦-+-+-¦ ??????? -+-+-¦-â-+-¦-é-î "-¦-+-é-¦ -¦ -+-¦-ê-¦-¦" -¦-¦-¦ -é-+ -+-¦ -à-+-ç-¦-é-ü-Å
Arian Neo Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2015.06.08 17:46:00 - [294] - Quote Oh nice. There is a little update for Warlords 1.2 as I see. Thank you. New UI, new Loadouts, new functionality? Give it to us.
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 384	Posted - 2015.06.10 21:00:00 - [295] - Quote Arian Neo wrote: Oh nice. There is a little update for Warlords 1.2 as I see. Thank you. New UI, new Loadouts, new functionality? Give it to us. Come on CCP give us blog to elaborate on the nice new things coming Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1	Posted - 2015.06.12 02:54:00 - [296] - Quote grom 801 wrote: -+-+-ü-+-¦ -¦-+-Å -¦-ï-+-¦-¦-¦-¦-é -+-¦-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦ -Ç-¦-+-+-+-ç-+-ï-à -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-+-¦ -+ -+-+-¦ -+-+-+-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦-+-¦ -¦ -¦-+-¦-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-+ ,-+-+-ç-¦-+-â -¦-+-¦-¦-¦ -+-é-¦-Ç-ï-¦-¦-¦-ê-î -+-¦-ê-+-ä-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-+-ï-¦ -ü-¦-¦-ä -+-¦-é -+-+-¦-+-¦-+-+-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-+ ??? -+-¦ -¦-ü-¦-¦-¦-¦ -+-+ -+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ -+-+-+-Å-é-+-+ -ç-é-+ -é-ï -+-é-¦-Ç-ï-+ ,-¦-+-¦-¦-¦-î-é-¦ -¦ -+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-ä-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-â -+-+-+-â-ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦-+ -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ Google translates this to: after the fight falls reward various subjects and she is depicted in the form of pictures, why, when you open an encrypted safe no such pictures ??? It is not always clear that the name of the object you have opened , add the name of the subject of the picture is the subject of safe Seems like a picture to show safe items is requested. Or something. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 385	Posted - 2015.06.12 17:02:00 - [297] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: grom 801 wrote: -+-+-ü-+-¦ -¦-+-Å -¦-ï-+-¦-¦-¦-¦-é -+-¦-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦ -Ç-¦-+-+-+-ç-+-ï-à -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-+-¦ -+ -+-+-¦ -+-+-+-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦-+-¦ -¦ -¦-+-¦-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-+ ,-+-+-ç-¦-+-â -¦-+-¦-¦-¦ -+-é-¦-Ç-ï-¦-¦-¦-ê-î -+-¦-ê-+-ä-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-+-ï-¦ -ü-¦-¦-ä -+-¦-é -+-+-¦-+-¦-+-+-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-+ ??? -+-¦ -¦-ü-¦-¦-¦-¦ -+-+ -+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ -+-+-+-Å-é-+-+ -ç-é-+ -é-ï -+-é-¦-Ç-ï-+ ,-¦-+-¦-¦-¦-î-é-¦ -¦ -+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-ä-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-é-+-+-¦-â -+-+-+-â-ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦-+ -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-¦ Google translates this to: after the fight falls reward various subjects and she is depicted in the form of pictures, why, when you open an encrypted safe no such pictures ??? It is not always clear that the name of the object you have opened , add the name of the subject of the picture is the subject of safe Seems like a picture to show safe items is requested. Or something. Or somewhere safe to put pictures of her (whoever she is) as they are not there any more. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
DJINN Jecture Templar of the Glowing Blade 411	Posted - 2015.06.21 16:45:00 - [298] - Quote I see an issue with the trading system where you are paying to give something to someone, and there is no guarantee it will actually be paid for, please implement a contract system of x item(s)/isk for y item(s)/isk. Steal Eve Online's contract system and modify it as needed for this game. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 388	Posted - 2015.06.22 16:37:00 - [299] - Quote DJINN Jecture wrote: I see an issue with the trading system where you are paying to give something to someone, and there is no guarantee it will actually be paid for, please implement a contract system of x item(s)/isk for y item(s)/isk. Steal Eve Online's contract system and modify it as needed for this game. The crest code must exist for both types of transfer so i cant see why the system implemented isn't even like the eve trade window (each party drops items into the window and agrees the deal...) sure scamming is still very possible but there are some safeguards.... Borrowing the contract system is just too safe i'm afraid. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 12	Posted - 2015.07.17 04:50:00 - [300] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: DJINN Jecture wrote: I see an issue with the trading system where you are paying to give something to someone, and there is no guarantee it will actually be paid for, please implement a contract system of x item(s)/isk for y item(s)/isk. Steal Eve Online's contract system and modify it as needed for this game. The code must exist for both types of transfer so i cant see why the system implemented isn't even like the eve trade window (each party drops items into the window and agrees the deal...) sure scamming is still very possible but there are some safeguards.... Borrowing the contract system is just too safe i'm afraid. It's not a matter of safety. It's a matter of making sure there are no bugs. CCP Rattati likes expand the secondary market, but that will take time and lots of baby steps as we have seen recently with Warlord 1.2 being deployed. Speaking of which... @CCP Rattati, when is the development road map for the Trello going to be updated now that we reached 1.2 and all that are left are the backlog items? Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy

Soldner VonKuechle SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.07.17 05:08:00 - [301] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Lady MDK wrote: DJINN Jecture wrote: I see an issue with the trading system where you are paying to give something to someone, and there is no guarantee it will actually be paid for, please implement a contract system of x item(s)/isk for y item(s)/isk. Steal Eve Online's contract system and modify it as needed for this game. The code must exist for both types of transfer so i cant see why the system implemented isn't even like the eve trade window (each party drops items into the window and agrees the deal...) sure scamming is still very possible but there are some safeguards.... Borrowing the contract system is just too safe i'm afraid. It's not a matter of safety. It's a matter of making sure there are no bugs. CCP Rattati likes expand the secondary market, but that will take time and lots of baby steps as we have seen recently with Warlord 1.2 being deployed. Speaking of which... @CCP Rattati, when is the development road map for the Trello going to be updated now that we reached 1.2 and all that are left are the backlog items? when they announce being ported to ps4 Currently in recluse bitter-vet mode.
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 394	Posted - 2015.07.18 11:41:00 - [302] - Quote with the stuff on the backlog and the possible introduction of powercores we have a couple more patches at least before we start asking what the 2.0 expansion will be and what platform it will come onto. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Ama Zarek BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 26	Posted - 2015.10.05 11:45:00 - [303] - Quote Just pointing out the "I can not drop a droplink bug" and "I can not run again without duck/rise up again" bugs are still in the game.
racistomato rednecks D3ATH CARD RUST415 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 08:14:00 - [304] - Quote We need loyalty store nova knives and forgeguns, and MORE HEAVY WEAPONS AN AMARR AND GAL. Possible ideas a heavy laser weapon of somesort for the amarr and for the gal an acid flamethrower from the acid pits in the ring map
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL RUST415 654	Posted - 2015.11.01 13:34:00 - [305] - Quote how about a update to the road map Eve info is at a ROAR and we don't hear as much as the wind blowing in dust or was that a fart?
Arian Neo Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 23	Posted - 2015.11.04 08:53:00 - [306] - Quote It is very silent about the development right now. I wonder if there is a plan after Warlords 1.3 or no plan at all but wait, that's the roadmap for 2015 only, wasn't it? So 1.3 should be released this year. Let us see what's up for 2016 and what are achievements 1.0? PSN Trophies? Hell, I have no clue but I demand a workbench for simple crafting in my quarters and a warbarge subsystem to support it too. Yeah CCP, I know what you're up to. You sneaky developers. The signs are everywhere.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 12	Posted - 2015.11.13 05:57:00 - [307] - Quote Arian Neo wrote: It is very silent about the development right now. I wonder if there is a plan after Warlords 1.3 or no plan at all but wait, that's the roadmap for 2015 only, wasn't it? So 1.3 should be released this year. Let us see what's up for 2016 and what are achievements 1.0? PSN Trophies? Hell, I have no clue but I demand a workbench for simple crafting in my quarters and a warbarge subsystem to support it too. Yeah CCP, I know what you're up to. You sneaky developers. The signs are everywhere. The recent Dev spotlight seems to hint that Warlords 1.3 is underway. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Master Kalvo XxAMBUSH FTWxX 1	Posted - 2015.11.19 22:29:00 - [308] - Quote One way to give space to starting/small corps would be to enable attacks on the warbarge of a Corp CEO, like a pirate attack. The attack would only be possible if the attacking corp has no districs and the corp being attacked has more then one district. The outcome for the smaller corp would be to choose between some options, such as: 1) steal clones 2) steal isk 3) steal a district of choice under the flag of the bigger corp 4) lockdown PC attacks for the bigger corp ...
aussy sledge ScReWeD uP InC Devil's Descendants 9	Posted - 2015.12.07 00:34:00 - [309] - Quote Need a better battle finder, one with a list of active games, but you can't join towards the end so people don't spam battle.. And a map viewer. That's what I want for Christmas ccp! Spreading freedom to all my fellow dust bunnies!
Arian Neo Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2015.12.10 09:24:00 - [310] - Quote So, no Warlords 1.3 in 2015. Happy Christmas.

sullen maximus Deadspace Knights 14	Posted - 2015.12.14 01:34:00 - [311] - Quote racistomato rednecks wrote: We need loyalty store nova knives and forgeguns, and MORE HEAVY WEAPONS AN AMARR AND GAL. Possible ideas a heavy laser weapon of somesort for the amarr and for the gal an acid flamethrower from the acid pits in the ring map you're kidding right? If i had a button that took everyone of thsoe weapons out of the game i would punch it so hard it would brake my hand. The thing that everyone hates in pretty much every FPS out there is 'instakill' weapons. this game has WAY too many of them and it's one of the biggest things killing it. The other is the absurdity of bpo prototypes why the hell would you ever introduce this. The entire premise behind protos is the cost. why would you introduce bpos for this into the game? now there is ZERO RISK to run the most powerful suits in the game. Getting really tired of going up against full proto teams who are running pure bpos.
sullen maximus Deadspace Knights 14	Posted - 2015.12.14 09:15:00 - [312] - Quote Honestly, proto gear should be restricted to certain gametypes or just tier the battles. Nobody likes being protostompped every game. This is just absurd to play at this point if you don't have more money than god.
Mad Syringe Carbon 7 879	Posted - 2015.12.15 18:00:00 - [313] - Quote Can some Dev please confirm, that Dust (on PS3) is not being worked on anymore? It's really pathetic, we know, that you guys have new people in the board of directors. These guys are all into VR. There is no reason to put any money into Dust whatsoever. So why not be honest, and pull the plug, or at least tell us when the servers will be switched of!!! I think we deserve that!
Git Gud Bruh 0.P. 66	Posted - 2015.12.24 10:03:00 - [314] - Quote It's really sad being 6 days away from 2016 and seeing this thread....I really wanna cry, there's no news, no hope, nobody even knows anymore, the game's as buggy as it was a year ago and we got some fancy warbarge that spits small amounts of isk and has a bunch of padlocks on it. I'd just like to know if I need to stop playing now. If i spend another 6 months in this game only to have the game shut down and shipped to PC I might just....I don't really know what I'm gonna do but I know that every single one of us mercs has put enough aurrum and effort into this that we deserve some news. I could got wild in the forums cursing and swearing at you guys and it would take a month for you to delete my post. It's ridiculous. The last time a dev posted in technical support was well over a month ago. I'm going through technical support doing your jobs just trying to help people get the game to work. Meanwhile modded controllers are running rampant, 60 man battles are popping up and factional battles are scotty having a feverdream. "Militia Internet, Proto Lag" -Zandor Suzuki "Where's Taco?"- Ice Royal #HaveYouSeenMyTaco? #PortTaco514
jNs Vit4l Th3.Immortals Shadow of Dust 99	Posted - 2015.12.26 14:32:00 - [315] - Quote We need a DEV at least to respond here whats going on? Wheres everybody? We need updates fix the game its bugged ..... then add new content. "God, grand me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change and the courage to change the things that I can"
dzizur Nos Nothi 1	Posted - 2015.12.30 06:34:00 - [316] - Quote Seems like a good time for Roadmap 2016, doesn't it?
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 18	Posted - 2016.01.05 22:08:00 - [317] - Quote dzizur wrote: Seems like a good time for Roadmap 2016, doesn't it? You beat me to it! Dropsuit Usage Rates
ROMULUS H3X research lab 933	Posted - 2016.01.09 18:32:00 - [318] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: dzizur wrote: Seems like a good time for Roadmap 2016, doesn't it? You beat me to it! Damn you both beat me to it :] Anyways it is 2016, lets start a new road to map out. FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS PLASMA/PISTOL/PUNCH ALL OF YOU PUNKS GET HUMILIATED AFTER LUNCH!
Justice Darling Horizons' Edge 126	Posted - 2016.01.10 14:22:00 - [319] - Quote ROMULUS H3X wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: dzizur wrote: Seems like a good time for Roadmap 2016, doesn't it? You beat me to it! Damn you both beat me to it :] Anyways it is 2016, lets start a new road to map out. Damn all 3 of you, you all beat me to it! Wait I know what it is: You can read minds! It's like my mother always told me! Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana , and codeine and god dammed it, you little mother!
Fleen Costell'o Academy Inferno E-R-A 635	Posted - 2016.01.10 21:40:00 - [320] - Quote Last activity in https://trello.com/b/R44szWCe/dust-514-development-roadmap 23 Jul 2015 at 16.20 . Rattati where a you? you play in "Legion"? BUGS514 Find all. I love ksu123 )

Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL RUST415 716	Posted - 2016.01.11 00:46:00 - [321] - Quote Road Map 2016 We are going to go silent and only tell you something when we have something to say.
Lost Apollo Moose Knuckle Pros Devil's Descendants 216	Posted - 2016.01.19 21:38:00 - [322] - Quote I still have hope for Dust and Ratatti''s team. Warlords 1.3 will be, I assume, EPIC. Not sure what they are doing but at the very least, it's SOMETHING. Frustration is definitely apparent. Waiting and silence are killers, to be sure. This game isn't a piece of ****. It's an amazing concept. My only gripe (major anyway) is the lack of interactions with EVE. My armor is weak, but my shields are relentless. State 'Rasetsu' Assault Born - April 1, 2013
Thor Odinson42 Th3.Immortals Shadow of Dust 7	Posted - 2016.01.25 22:29:00 - [323] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Road Map 2016 We are going to go silent and only tell you something when we have something to say. CCP Frame said on 11/09/2015 Locking this down now. It is very obvious that you guys want info on the future update and you shall receive - soon. Warlords 1.3 development is doing great, and we are happy where it is right now. We are just getting into final stretch with it, and then will start revealing it to you all. Silence can be frustrating, but sometimes it is well wort the wait. Looking forward to you finshing the final stretch I just hope the plans were not changed when CCP Rattiti went to iceland for a month. I think you hit the nail on the head. When he went to Iceland it all went south.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 18	Posted - 2016.01.30 12:14:00 - [324] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Luther Mandrix wrote: Road Map 2016 We are going to go silent and only tell you something when we have something to say. CCP Frame said on 11/09/2015 Locking this down now. It is very obvious that you guys want info on the future update and you shall receive - soon. Warlords 1.3 development is doing great, and we are happy where it is right now. We are just getting into final stretch with it, and then will start revealing it to you all. Silence can be frustrating, but sometimes it is well wort the wait. Looking forward to you finshing the final stretch I just hope the plans were not changed when CCP Rattiti went to iceland for a month. I think you hit the nail on the head. When he went to Iceland it all went south. "You get one more update, Mr. Rattati. Make it count." Dropsuit Usage Rates


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 :: [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.

-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

Moody come back