DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

» 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 12 13 [14] 15 16 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16993	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:56:00 - [391] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: JIAF-PR wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. :: snip :: All this argument come down with Aurum. No aspect of the argument involves Aurum. * Components are generated by corp-owned, district-based factories. * Components are stored within corp-owned, district-based facilities. * Components are used as payment to personnel for services rendered. * Components can be raided from district-based facilities and factories. When Raiders succeed in looting your Corp's factories or facilities, your paycheck will show it. You'll be as motivated to show up and defend as the Raider will be to Raid. Isk is old news. What we all want is components. What we'll all get is increased PC activity. Or so I hope :-) We have been mulling this, the component idea seemed smart at the time, but alt-farming ruined it. We also foresaw the p2w so were thinking of a cap of donations anyway. The updated idea is that CP is only earned, basically by doing daily missions. Components can be earned and donated, maybe at a cap but components would only upgrade the Corporation/Fleet Command Center (versus MCC). We haven't completed figured out altfarming in that context. Vitantur's idea of Districts creating components is a sound one as well. Please take the tinfoil hats off, this is getting quite exhausting. Constructive feedback in dev feedback threads is a requirement. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16993	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:59:00 - [392] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Rather than donating, why not just have every complete mission a player finishes generate a set amount of CP? This would reward highly active corps and prevent donating several thousand components generated With AUR in order to CP spam raids, PC attacks, MCC builds and clone generation. That way you have a reason to want a high number of players generating CP as much as possible. Large, more importantly, ACTIVE, corps should natively generate a lot of CP. Small or inactive corps should bemore natively llimited in their CP capacity and with the raiding planned you will need to involve more players in PC than a tiny, 25 man group to take and hold wide swathes of land. exactly "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16993	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:59:00 - [393] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: JIAF-PR wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. :: snip :: All this argument come down with Aurum. No aspect of the argument involves Aurum. * Components are generated by corp-owned, district-based factories. * Components are stored within corp-owned, district-based facilities. * Components are used as payment to personnel for services rendered. * Components can be raided from district-based facilities and factories. When Raiders succeed in looting your Corp's factories or facilities, your paycheck will show it. You'll be as motivated to show up and defend as the Raider will be to Raid. Isk is old news. What we all want is components. What we'll all get is increased PC activity. Or so I hope :-) exactly "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 15067	Posted - 2015.02.10 05:29:00 - [394] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: PC community wrote: The future be whack yo exactly Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4553	Posted - 2015.02.10 09:48:00 - [395] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: JIAF-PR wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. :: snip :: All this argument come down with Aurum. No aspect of the argument involves Aurum. * Components are generated by corp-owned, district-based factories. * Components are stored within corp-owned, district-based facilities. * Components are used as payment to personnel for services rendered. * Components can be raided from district-based facilities and factories. When Raiders succeed in looting your Corp's factories or facilities, your paycheck will show it. You'll be as motivated to show up and defend as the Raider will be to Raid. Isk is old news. What we all want is components. What we'll all get is increased PC activity. Or so I hope :-) We have been mulling this over, the component=CP idea seemed simple and smart at the time, but alt-farming ruined it(Thanks Jadek!). We also foresaw the p2w coccerns so were thinking of a cap of donations anyway. The donations were more, "oh no, we are out of missions, we are running out of CP so everyone donate a few so we can hold the district" scenario. The updated idea is that CP is only earned, basically by doing daily missions. Components can be earned and donated, maybe at a cap but components would only upgrade the Corporation/Fleet Command Center (versus MCC). We haven't completed figured out altfarming in that context. Vitantur's idea of Districts creating components is a sound one as well. Please take the tinfoil hats off, this is getting quite exhausting. Constructive feedback in dev feedback threads is a requirement. This sounds good. Thank you for listening to the feedback about the Warbarge component -> Command point chain! Playing the game to get CP makes way more sense. I think helping upgrade the corporate command center with donated components is fair. The devil will be in the details of what all you can do with the Corporation/Fleet Command Center upgrades. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8647	Posted - 2015.02.11 02:18:00 - [396] - Quote Here's my thinking about the whole CP and daily missions thing: Personal Missions Example: All corp members make 50 kills individually. Corp daily missions that are completely on a character-by-character basis runs the risk of being gamed by alts. Just load up your corp full of all your alts, do the dailies on all of them, instantly more CP generated than you would expect for the amount of real-body players. Another thing is that (and this is just a personal preference) I personally don't like having corp missions be just more daily missions like we already have. It puts a lot of weight on the player to be expected to go beyond being active and having to do the daily missions and some of the ones we currently have are just.... well they're just balls (that vehicle kill assist thing is annoying). If I'm inactive for whatever reason, my corp suffers this way. A corporation should be able to manage their players personally, without having to consider how gameplay mechanics affect them. A corporation shouldn't have to think, "Okay, well, we have 25 guys pulling in components... but Johnny NoBody is away on maternity leave (or whatever reason) so we really only have 24 guys pulling in components." Corporate "Event" Missions Example: All corp members make 2,500 kills corp-wide. With this method you run less risk of it being gamed by alt-warfare, but run a higher risk of 'Alt-Corps' in which they just put all their alts into a separate corp and do pretty much the same thing. The difference here is that - assuming we're not doing donations - you can hard cap how many components a corporation can make based on their activity as a whole instead of the activity of their individual players. This way, if I'm inactive, my corp doesn't have to suffer. They can kick me out for being inactive but they don't have to consider all the math behind it, the other members can just take up the slack. It's also more fun (at least in my opinion) because then I -FEEL- like I'm making a difference in my corporation instead of it feeling like a job and having to meet a quota. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 812	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:11:00 - [397] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: Nothing was/ is going to stop top tier players from being key to success in MH as long as we are forced to use the 16 v 16 we can only hope that they increase the pool of active players in their corps to give a larger portion of the community a place in PC. I will say this small corps like the one I am currently in have no place in PC and should be highly discouraged for anyone to even attempt to hold land until they can comfortably have 2 16 man teams at a time. Bugs and exploits are part and parcel with the New Eden experience and even if raiding is done poorly it will create interest in PC which we both can agree is sorely needed. The bolded area is primarily why I suggested raiding parties be limited in participant numbers with defenders having a number advantage. Small groups currently rarely stand successfully against the larger corps and while it may seem self-serving to suggest 6v12 matches, the real beneficiaries are those smaller groups. Landholding in MH is more than just "taking" a district, there are constant and continuous changes politically and territorially which can be very difficult to track let alone predict, kind of like the behaviour in PC of random players and the effect their actions have on the final outcome. This is part of our EVE heritage and is evidently working as intended. Bugs and exploits are part and parcel for all gaming, online and otherwise (ever cheat at poker?), however if we can see obvious imbalance or poor game design on the drafting table then we can and are best served by addressing those issues immediately instead of going full production and release with an intent to "fix it" later. If raiding is done poorly it will not inspire any more interest in PC than currently exists but will most definitely inspire more negative criticism of PC, DUST514 and CCP than currently exists. Remember, most consumers will contact a company to complain about a product that functions poorly but will almost never contact a company about a product working well. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7112	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:34:00 - [398] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: Nothing was/ is going to stop top tier players from being key to success in MH as long as we are forced to use the 16 v 16 we can only hope that they increase the pool of active players in their corps to give a larger portion of the community a place in PC. I will say this small corps like the one I am currently in have no place in PC and should be highly discouraged for anyone to even attempt to hold land until they can comfortably have 2 16 man teams at a time. Bugs and exploits are part and parcel with the New Eden experience and even if raiding is done poorly it will create interest in PC which we both can agree is sorely needed. The bolded area is primarily why I suggested raiding parties be limited in participant numbers with defenders having a number advantage. Small groups currently rarely stand successfully against the larger corps and while it may seem self-serving to suggest 6v12 matches, the real beneficiaries are those smaller groups. Landholding in MH is more than just "taking" a district, there are constant and continuous changes politically and territorially which can be very difficult to track let alone predict, kind of like the behaviour in PC of random players and the effect their actions have on the final outcome. This is part of our EVE heritage and is evidently working as intended. Bugs and exploits are part and parcel for all gaming, online and otherwise (ever cheat at poker?), however if we can see obvious imbalance or poor game design on the drafting table then we can and are best served by addressing those issues immediately instead of going full production and release with an intent to "fix it" later. If raiding is done poorly it will not inspire any more interest in PC than currently exists but will most definitely inspire more negative criticism of PC, DUST514 and CCP than currently exists. Remember, most consumers will contact a company to complain about a product that functions poorly but will almost never contact a company about a product working well. 6v12 offers no tactical advantage to the raiding party and every advantage to the defenders. Unless the raiders get a sh*t-hot tactical advantage that will allow them to overcome 12 proto stacked crazies then 12 v12 should be the away it goes. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 812	Posted - 2015.02.11 23:02:00 - [399] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 6v12 offers no tactical advantage to the raiding party and every advantage to the defenders. Correct. It is weighted towards the defenders, partially to address what Travis accurately descibed as "top-tier players" who are "key to success" and the effect raids from those players on small corps' districts will I have. (I predict large scale small-corp ownership contraction) Breakin Stuff wrote: Unless the raiders get a sht-hot tactical advantage that will allow them to overcome 12 proto stacked crazies then 12 v12 should be the away it goes. Just me, but that raiders will be able to pick exactly when and whom to attack, therefore able to select land whose owners may be away (memberbase not online) or distracted (memberbase occupied in pubs, PC or defending a different raid) I think definitely qualifies as a "sht-hot tactical advantage". Any raiding group that isn't leveraging that ability towards their own success really doesn't have being successful as a priority. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 380	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:41:00 - [400] - Quote The bolded area is primarily why I suggested raiding parties be limited in participant numbers with defenders having a number advantage. Small groups currently rarely stand successfully against the larger corps and while it may seem self-serving to suggest 6v12 matches, the real beneficiaries are those smaller groups. I believe your suggestion will only place new corps at a disadvantage. I understand that you are trying to curtail the power of the mega corps however we both know that those 6 players will still win just because they have been playing together for years already (teamwork> all) It is not uncommon for a single squad of elites to win battles in pubs with little effort. Ambush is the closest thing currently and we see how many one sided stomps are there. Frankly I really think there is nothing we could possibly implement to prevent them from being the masters of raiding. We both know that there is hardly anything we can do to prevent the top slayers from annihilating new corps without also crippling said corps. Landholding in MH is more than just "taking" a district, there are constant and continuous changes politically and territorially which can be very difficult to track let alone predict, kind of like the behaviour in PC of random players and the effect their actions have on the final outcome. This is part of our EVE heritage and is evidently working as intended. I understand that there is a very large role for meta in PC thats why I said small corps should be discouraged from holding land because generally speaking small corps are ill equipped to defend themselves from current PC powerhouses and the long and confused history that formed them. That is something we both agree upon. Raiding MUST be profitable and accessible enough to get them in the door and start to build their own legacies. Bugs and exploits are part and parcel for all gaming, online and otherwise (ever cheat at poker?), however if we can see obvious imbalance or poor game design on the drafting table then we can and are best served by addressing those issues immediately instead of going full production and release with an intent to "fix it" later. If raiding is done poorly it will not inspire any more interest in PC than currently exists but will most definitely inspire more negative criticism of PC, DUST514 and CCP than currently exists. Remember, most consumers will contact a company to complain about a product that functions poorly but will almost never contact a company about a product working well. Unfortunately CCP has left PC to suffer in limbo so long that it really is impossible to fix much of anything without creating negative feedback. Right now it is either they displease the PC crowd who has become so entrenched in PC that it is practically impossible to break them (due in part to passive ISK and the tedious speed at which ANY fixes were implemented) or well keeping the exact same crowd in PC as they have now.. We both know that CCP will have to bite A bullet but which one is up to them. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7122	Posted - 2015.02.12 06:45:00 - [401] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 6v12 offers no tactical advantage to the raiding party and every advantage to the defenders. Correct. It is weighted towards the defenders, partially to address what Travis accurately descibed as "top-tier players" who are "key to success" and the effect raids from those players on small corps' districts will I have. (I predict large scale small-corp ownership contraction) Breakin Stuff wrote: Unless the raiders get a sht-hot tactical advantage that will allow them to overcome 12 proto stacked crazies then 12 v12 should be the away it goes. Just me, but that raiders will be able to pick exactly when and whom to attack, therefore able to select land whose owners may be away (memberbase not online) or distracted (memberbase occupied in pubs, PC or defending a different raid) I think definitely qualifies as a "sht-hot tactical advantage". Any raiding group that isn't leveraging that ability towards their own success really doesn't have being successful as a priority. No. All your demands will do is deter newer corps from participating entirely. It's not a compromise, you're pushing for raiding to be a zero-impact nonfactor, and bluntly it's not contributing anything useful to the discussion. AV
Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 65	Posted - 2015.02.14 08:34:00 - [402] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, Stuff With this, will players be able to own their own MCCs and pick whether to use a charron or a cestus?
GrimzOvaHourz The Forgotten Spirits 80	Posted - 2015.02.14 13:50:00 - [403] - Quote when dis coming out
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4600	Posted - 2015.02.14 15:37:00 - [404] - Quote GrimzOvaHourz wrote: when dis coming out https://trello.com/b/R44szWCe/dust-514-development-roadmap Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
GrimzOvaHourz The Forgotten Spirits 80	Posted - 2015.02.14 23:45:00 - [405] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: GrimzOvaHourz wrote: when dis coming out https://trello.com/b/R44szWCe/dust-514-development-roadmap when dis 1.1 coming out
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 880	Posted - 2015.02.16 11:03:00 - [406] - Quote No exact date yet "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7228	Posted - 2015.02.16 17:26:00 - [407] - Quote drop HMG to 2000 RPM, increase range to 40m. puts it at 650 DPS-ish. AV
MRBH1997 Knights Of Ender RISE of LEGION 150	Posted - 2015.02.19 08:34:00 - [408] - Quote Will older corporations have more of a head start on the level of their corporate command or will we have to work our way up just like newer corporations? CEO of Knights of Ender Corporation Recruitment Channel: Ender's Keep One of the best tankers out there.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7294	Posted - 2015.02.19 08:54:00 - [409] - Quote MRBH1997 wrote: Will older corporations have more of a head start on the level of their corporate command or will we have to work our way up just like newer corporations? Odds are, like the warbarges, older players aren't getting a head start. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:24:00 - [410] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: No. All your demands will do is deter newer corps from participating entirely. It's not a compromise, you're pushing for raiding to be a zero-impact nonfactor, and bluntly it's not contributing anything useful to the discussion. Now, now Mr. BS. My suggestions will assist any new corp in being able to hold districts longer, which when it comes to PC is the point. I'm absolutley open and looking for compromise, if anything it's your continued insistence that raiding be little to no risk that is uncompromising. I want raids to be impactful, I want cumulative raiding effects and rewards to be significant. I just don't want raiding to be the negligible-risk auto-pub the OP describes. And there's nothing "not contributing anything useful" about saying so, especially since I'm also proposing (and endorsing others') ideas to improve it. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7330	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:13:00 - [411] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: No. All your demands will do is deter newer corps from participating entirely. It's not a compromise, you're pushing for raiding to be a zero-impact nonfactor, and bluntly it's not contributing anything useful to the discussion. Now, now Mr. BS. My suggestions will assist any new corp in being able to hold districts longer, which when it comes to PC is the point. I'm absolutley open and looking for compromise, if anything it's your continued insistence that raiding be little to no risk that is uncompromising. I want raids to be impactful, I want cumulative raiding effects and rewards to be significant. I just don't want raiding to be the negligible-risk auto-pub the OP describes. And there's nothing "not contributing anything useful" about saying so, especially since I'm also proposing (and endorsing others') ideas to improve it. then quit suggesting mechanics that automatically stack everything in favor of the defender. You're demanding the raiders take more loss and more risk than players in actual PC matches, which IS unreasonable. Same risk? Fine. More? Hell no. and if the defender can't hold their ground against raiders he's going to lose his land to invaders anyway. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:04:00 - [412] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: No. All your demands will do is deter newer corps from participating entirely. It's not a compromise, you're pushing for raiding to be a zero-impact nonfactor, and bluntly it's not contributing anything useful to the discussion. Now, now Mr. BS. My suggestions will assist any new corp in being able to hold districts longer, which when it comes to PC is the point. I'm absolutley open and looking for compromise, if anything it's your continued insistence that raiding be little to no risk that is uncompromising. I want raids to be impactful, I want cumulative raiding effects and rewards to be significant. I just don't want raiding to be the negligible-risk auto-pub the OP describes. And there's nothing "not contributing anything useful" about saying so, especially since I'm also proposing (and endorsing others') ideas to improve it. then quit suggesting mechanics that automatically stack everything in favor of the defender. You're demanding the raiders take more loss and more risk than players in actual PC matches, which IS unreasonable. Same risk? Fine. More? Hell no. and if the defender can't hold their ground against raiders he's going to lose his land to invaders anyway. Good to see that roll of yours still has a reverse gear. 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 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:08:00 - [413] - Quote "Same risk" between raiders (who can choose the when and where of a conflict) and defenders (who will pay losses from their districts assets that they've worked to develop) implicitly states that raiders must possess some "thing" ( not their MCC clones) that they have to work to aquire and upon losing raids will lose and be encumbered with redeveloping before raiding again. ez Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7342	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:50:00 - [414] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: "Same risk" between raiders (who can choose the when and where of a conflict) and defenders (who will pay losses from their districts assets that they've worked to develop) implicitly states that raiders must possess some "thing" ( not their MCC clones) that they have to work to aquire and upon losing raids will lose and be encumbered with redeveloping before raiding again. ez You are literally being the pc raid debate version of spkr4thedead right now, just more polite. Have fun trying to convince the devs that it's unfair that raid teams be able to meet you on even terms. But you've blown off every valid concern brought up. Hope when PC rolls around it's a Ripper. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:59:00 - [415] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: "Same risk" between raiders (who can choose the when and where of a conflict) and defenders (who will pay losses from their districts assets that they've worked to develop) implicitly states that raiders must possess some "thing" ( not their MCC clones) that they have to work to aquire and upon losing raids will lose and be encumbered with redeveloping before raiding again. ez You are literally being the pc raid debate version of spkr4thedead right now, just more polite. Have fun trying to convince the devs that it's unfair that raid teams be able to meet you on even terms. But you've blown off every valid concern brought up. Hope when PC rolls around it's a Ripper. If raiders are enabled to select districts that aren't defended then there is no even terms. Not without adding some other balancing element to raids (lopsided battle potential, raid "windows" concurrent with PC timers, different mode rules etc) or raid initiation (WB/CP component required and destructable etc.) . Obviously obvious conclusion is obvious. I haven't dismissed any input on the topic, if anything I've helped this conversation not be a debate but instead an actual discourse exploring the merits and drawbacks of different ideas, all while being singled out for accusations of being some sort of miscreant intending harm to the gameplay of others. O.o Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7350	Posted - 2015.02.21 05:48:00 - [416] - Quote If your district isn't being defended odds are you should loosen up the recruiting and bring in more people and allow them to participate in PC raid battles to train them for the real deal. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:26:00 - [417] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: If your district isn't being defended odds are you should loosen up the recruiting and bring in more people and allow them to participate in PC raid battles to train them for the real deal. Which will be where newer/smaller corps in PC (actually in possession of districts) will get squeezed out. Leaving districts for further assimilation by larger corps and exacerbating the current state of MH ownership, over-consolidation. OR leaving districts totally vacant and unretainable. Unowned districts, btw in this model, not generating anything so useless for raiding. Useless for owning and useless for raiding. Where's the PC "revitalization" again? And out of curiosity, what portion of this mode proposal provides the PC training? The Ambush mode part? The Domination modepart? The Skirmish mode part? The queue battle from the finder? 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 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:33:00 - [418] - Quote And for the billionth time, I'm not against raiding (I'm extremely pro almost any game expansion) but I am against ezmode auto-pub-queues being dressed up as PC training. We have those, they're called Faction WarFare. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7353	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:24:00 - [419] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: And for the billionth time, I'm not against raiding (I'm extremely pro almost any game expansion) but I am against ezmode auto-pub-queues being dressed up as PC training. We have those, they're called Faction WarFare. all of your suggestions to balance it indicate otherwise by making it easy for the defenders to casually repel the attackers. That sounds a lot like being against raiding for some reason. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:42:00 - [420] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And for the billionth time, I'm not against raiding (I'm extremely pro almost any game expansion) but I am against ezmode auto-pub-queues being dressed up as PC training. We have those, they're called Faction WarFare. all of your suggestions to balance it indicate otherwise by making it easy for the defenders to casually repel the attackers. That sounds a lot like being against raiding for some reason. If those raids are auto-pubs then yeah, I'm against it. And at a loss as to why anyone, except the most self-entitled, would be for it. We have Pubs already. And then we have the exact same modes in Faction WarFare. And the exact same modes again in PC. So, in the interest of expanding content and "revitalizing" we add a fourth redundancy? Case in point: In your MQ you can press start and open the tab section for fitting, launching battles etc. (neocom). OR you can walk around the room and use specific terminal shortcuts laid about. OR you can use one of the quick keys listed at the bottom of the screen. 3 different ways of all doing the exact same thing. That's not content expansion, that's redundancy. The current raiding OP, as proposed, is redundant as well. There's no additional gameplay, just an auto-queue. If we can get some actual depth to it, we might have a different animal. As it is tho it's just another pub match. And for raiders it's actually a high-likelihood of little-to-no-risk pubmatch since they'll be enabled to actively pick underdefended districts. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.

Moody come back