DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Transporters

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Transporters

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17821	Posted - 2015.03.04 04:57:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2466	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:02:00 - [2] - Quote This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Besides maybe Iron Delta, Boulder Rim, and Border Gulch, I can't see these working well in our current maps. Suck powerful assets are best implemented on fairly symmetrical maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. Home at Last <3

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17822	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:04:00 - [3] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2466	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:10:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. That's probably best. I'd implement it as short range transportation from the home spawns to the closest point to said home spawns. 1 way transport. Maybe have some as "elevators" to elevated positions, but I'm not too sure about that... Home at Last <3
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2274	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:13:00 - [5] - Quote So to comment on something kind of like this... I really really enjoyed the new MCC repair facility map, because it has a lot of verticality to it, but after playing it a few times I realised that all the control points were still very much on the ground. It would be interesting to see a map with a lot of verticality where one of these 'jump portals' is able to say move you to the 'top' of a map (an area where you wouldn't necessarily be able to just stay up there and rain down fire) but you would be able to stage assaults on say D & E points. That said, with 'jump portals' being a thing, you'd have to set them up so that they can either have multiple exits or there's some other way of preventing 'spawn camping' of them. One place where I would like to see a jump portal in an existing map is in the 'boulder ridge' cavern, having a portal there could allow one to jump up to the 'top' area of it. so you have the 'gameplay' of people assaulting into or ninja-dropping onto the point, and people at the point defending or preparing 'teleport' attacks onto the upper level. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2466	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:22:00 - [6] - Quote For example: I'll use Border Gulch, as it seems the obvious choice for something like this... 1.)1-way transporter from the blue MCC spawn room to the little indent in the wall on the roof of C-12. 2.)1 way transporter from the blue ground spawn to the same indent. Mirror that on the other side for the red team. 3.)2-way transporter from the back of K-13 to the slanted roof you can see in E-9 Suddenly the mostly ignored Delta becomes a power-point in Skirmish, able to mount a strong attack onto the center point. Home at Last <3

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17822	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:42:00 - [7] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: For example: I'll use Border Gulch, as it seems the obvious choice for something like this... 1.)1-way transporter from the blue MCC spawn room to the little indent in the wall on the roof of C-12. 2.)1 way transporter from the blue ground spawn to the same indent. Mirror that on the other side for the red team. 3.)2-way transporter from the back of K-13 to the slanted roof you can see in E-9 Suddenly the mostly ignored Delta becomes a power-point in Skirmish, able to mount a strong attack onto the center point. I am loving these. Please, everyone, think about and propose great spots, to make maps more dynamic, unused objectives, those pain points you hate. Be as specific as possible. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2466	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:49:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: For example: I'll use Border Gulch, as it seems the obvious choice for something like this... 1.)1-way transporter from the blue MCC spawn room to the little indent in the wall on the roof of C-12. 2.)1 way transporter from the blue ground spawn to the same indent. Mirror that on the other side for the red team. 3.)2-way transporter from the back of K-13 to the slanted roof you can see in E-9 Suddenly the mostly ignored Delta becomes a power-point in Skirmish, able to mount a strong attack onto the center point. I am loving these. Please, everyone, think about and propose great spots, to make maps more dynamic, unused objectives, those pain points you hate. Be as specific as possible. What do these transporters look like? Are they Halo 3 style energy pads, or are they Halo 1 style portal-doorways? Or something completely different? It would be nice to know so we can provide ideas that make more sense. Home at Last <3
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 7219	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:49:00 - [9] - Quote Love it! Remotes were the first thing which crossed my mind, and it looks like you've already worked that out. Exit Nodes would need strong scan precision (to show remotes) and scan range (to show campers). Question: If a unit stood atop a Entry Node, would it be possible for his FOV to "phase between" Entry and Exit Nodes? This way he could look around the Exit Node from the safety of the Entry Node. If all looks clear, press "X" to commit warp. If not, press "O" to cycle to next Exit Node. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Foehammerr Dead Man's Game RUST415 156	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:53:00 - [10] - Quote Easiest source of information to use as a reference would be to use Halo 2 and 3 maps as a gi Uide as they had great design in terms of how teleporters were used *De Opresso Liber* Beta Vet since 2/5/2013

Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2466	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:54:00 - [11] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Love it! Remotes were the first thing which crossed my mind, and it looks like you've already worked that out. Exit Nodes would need strong scan precision (to show remotes) and scan range (to show campers). Question: If a unit stood atop a Entry Node, would it be possible for his FOV to "phase between" Entry and Exit Nodes? This way he could look around the Exit Node from the safety of the Entry Node. If all looks clear, press "X" to commit to travel. If not, press "O" to cycle to next Exit Node. I think an easier and more absolute way to provide RE protection would just be a vicinity based feature that made REs(and possibly all equipment) impossible to deploy near the teleporters. This would go a long way towards preventing Repair Hive, Uplink, and RE spam near the links, all of which could easily become a problem. Home at Last <3
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1569	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:56:00 - [12] - Quote I would imagine there would need to be several of these if you were to completely prevent camping. Just trust that, coming from someone in a corporation who had to open our own bottling plant from the tears we get from spawn camping/etc. In the end, I feel like this is just a way to "cover up" bad map design. Our lives are nothing but a means to an end. AIV member. 21 day EVE trial.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 7219	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:57:00 - [13] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Love it! Remotes were the first thing which crossed my mind, and it looks like you've already worked that out. Exit Nodes would need strong scan precision (to show remotes) and scan range (to show campers). Question: If a unit stood atop a Entry Node, would it be possible for his FOV to "phase between" Entry and Exit Nodes? This way he could look around the Exit Node from the safety of the Entry Node. If all looks clear, press "X" to commit to travel. If not, press "O" to cycle to next Exit Node. I think an easier and more absolute way to provide RE protection would just be a vicinity based feature that made REs(and possibly all equipment) impossible to deploy near the teleporters. This would go a long way towards preventing Repair Hive, Uplink, and RE spam near the links, all of which could easily become a problem. That's an excellent idea. If EQ deployed within X meters of Exit Node, EQ fizzles. :: Campers watching Exit Node ... waiting ... :: :: HAV comes crashing through and mows them down :: Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 873	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:58:00 - [14] - Quote Could this end the concept of redline camping as a whole? Like use this as an opportunity to create a defined "deployment" zone which is an area far removed from the battlefield and surrounded on all sides by a redline that kills both sides. It'd be an island of safety. The deployment zone would be setup in an area that's all but impossible to take advantage of from a tactical perspective and would mean the moment you transport from the "deployment zone" to the "battlefield" you have to commit to whatever you've called out (there'd be no portal going from the battlefield back to the deployment zones). This would address the redline in its current state being vulnerable to rail tank sniping while deploying vehicles and snipers using it as a means to snipe with impunity on the smaller Domination maps. Skirmish idea? I'm not sure of the technical limitations here but I hate joining skirmishes that "end" in the first 5 minutes of the match - ie the teams are so unmatched (tactically speaking, I know we've done work on the matchmaking) that you're already redlined from the beginning and have to sit and take the stomping for however long it takes the null cannons to finish the job. In a situation where the enemy has all the capturable points the deployment portals would become vulnerable assets that could be destroyed with a combined vehicle push (they'd take like multiple tanks firing constantly for X amount of time). Destroying all deployment portals would end the match instantly and give an additional bonus in SP and ISK to the winning team so that the stompers can end the matches quicker than they would otherwise and the defending team doesn't have to stick around in a clearly lost battle for longer than they have to. This would immediately give vehicles a real and defined "role". While also realistically giving the redlined infantry a better chance at taking a point (More people in vehicles trying to get instant win condition = less people defending vulnerable points) Conversely the enemy team could coordinate a defensive push as well (suddenly 5 tanks rush out of the portals and break the enemy team). Could be fun. So yeah, if possible, allow vehicles to use these portals as well and consider the implications that this could be used for in terms of completely removing all remaining issues with redline camping
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 7219	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:04:00 - [15] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: Conversely the enemy team could coordinate a defensive push as well (suddenly 5 tanks rush out of the portals and break the enemy team). Could be fun. Exactly! The surprise aspect could be a blast. We'd need some kind of "Fog of War" to prevent us from snooping via overhead map. A Tank Column would be pretty easy to spot during the prep stage otherwise. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 596	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:08:00 - [16] - Quote This is awesome! I thought it would be a while before jump portals would be possible.
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 302	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:17:00 - [17] - Quote With the small size of most maps i dont really care for the idea. If ccp were to enable the full scale of the maps and battle fields per match (someone recently had a thread showing maps that were part of the same area) i could see the logic, but then i feel this would make vehicles all the more irrelevant. Personally id rather see squads being packed into dropships and transported as it feels more like a gritty new eden like experience rather than an arcade game mechanic. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
voidfaction Nos Nothi 1238	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:23:00 - [18] - Quote Would I be able to run into the redline and kill a redline sniper and use their portal to get out quick before the timer kills me, lol noi¦Ü+ö+Æßû+(V)Faction
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 302	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:23:00 - [19] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: With the small size of most maps i dont really care for the idea. If ccp were to enable the full scale of the maps and battle fields per match (someone recently had a thread showing maps that were part of the same area) i could see the logic, but then i feel this would make vehicles all the more irrelevant. Personally id rather see squads being packed into dropships and transported as it feels more like a gritty new eden like experience rather than an arcade game mechanic. If the NPE is the focus why not have a message pop up at the top of the screen if someone calls in a vehicle during the first minute of an academy match that says - x has called a LAV get in by pressing circle. To change seat press triangle. Sorry typing on mobile phone fail. I did add some though but meant to edit not quote. MODERATOR!!! Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Raffael-Puma Austria Storm.Fighters E.B.O.L.A. 3	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:26:00 - [20] - Quote Remove/delate mb/s give logis std-3,adv-4,pro-5 equipment slots and a over powered uplink bonus and all is fine! You guys from ccp never play this game, you didn't know that remote explosives destroyed the gameplay so much! We need more teamplayers, this means min. 32 on every side and special-gamemode with 50/50 players! The sentinel died every minute on remote explosives (and i only take the best from the best-PRO) we need a delate/remove from remote explosives or only damage at vehicles (HAV_not LAV!!!) The cpu/pg from gallente sentinel is to low when i want to take only PRO in this suite i can't! Make an efficence on plates and reduction from CPU/PG by skillbonus from sentinels and set hp to 650 or more ,because gallente havy is REALLY low powered (set damage from boundless hmg to 20,5 and heat to 14!) With all skills i saw it on protofits.com) you don't have enought cpu and pg in gallente sentinel to fit is only PRO! So the game can be better and not with portals! More havy-logi combos and isk payment not only by wp, we need it also for kills, because when i die more than ones the isk-paymet at end from battle is miserable! So please think intensive about this what i wrote and make the game playable, then for now it is so frustrating! I hate all Updates after Uprising 1.7 and the RailRifle nerf! Only selfrepair is cool, but havy need more HP/s


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17828	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:46:00 - [21] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: For example: I'll use Border Gulch, as it seems the obvious choice for something like this... 1.)1-way transporter from the blue MCC spawn room to the little indent in the wall on the roof of C-12. 2.)1 way transporter from the blue ground spawn to the same indent. Mirror that on the other side for the red team. 3.)2-way transporter from the back of K-13 to the slanted roof you can see in E-9 Suddenly the mostly ignored Delta becomes a power-point in Skirmish, able to mount a strong attack onto the center point. I am loving these. Please, everyone, think about and propose great spots, to make maps more dynamic, unused objectives, those pain points you hate. Be as specific as possible. What do these transporters look like? Are they Halo 3 style energy pads, or are they Halo 1 style portal-doorways? Or something completely different? It would be nice to know so we can provide ideas that make more sense. doorways, I am not sure if we can modify them to be pads "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 649	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:50:00 - [22] - Quote Initial thought; Cool!!! After some further consideration, I am not so sure anymore. The potential negative sides are too great if not handled with uttermost care, even if just providing an escape from the redline. Some maps might be logical, but under no circumstances should these portals be used all the time (on all maps); just because.. Another concern I have is the required development time/effort required to get this from QA to the actual game client. You don't want this to feel "tacked on" or "gimmicky", so you will need animations for the portal, some 3D modelling for the actual structure (if you don't want it to float in mid air), UI map markers to indicate which portals lead to where, and which ones are one way and which ones are A <-> B. I suspect it might take some effort to do this properly. TDLR: It's a really cool idea, but I think there are more things which I would rather have than portals, such as racial symmetry of vehicles (models), completly new game modes, etc. I really like Foundation's idea for a separate deployments zone, connected to a battle zone (with common redline) using portals. This is how portals should be used; As a completly new map / concept / game mode. Then it's worth it.
Avallo Kantor 469	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:52:00 - [23] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: [quote=Fizzer XCIV] ... What do these transporters look like? Are they Halo 3 style energy pads, or are they Halo 1 style portal-doorways? Or something completely different? It would be nice to know so we can provide ideas that make more sense. doorways, I am not sure if we can modify them to be pads Could these doorways be big enough for vehicles, or infantry sized only? Also can they be "toggled"? For example, could a portal only be Open on a conditional? (For example a portal from MCC to A if A is blue?)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17828	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:55:00 - [24] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: Initial thought; Cool!!! After some further consideration, I am not so sure anymore. The potential negative sides are too great if not handled with uttermost care, even if just providing an escape from the redline. Some maps might be logical, but under no circumstances should these portals be used all the time (on all maps); just because.. Another concern I have is the required development time/effort required to get this from QA to the actual game client. You don't want this to feel "tacked on" or "gimmicky", so you will need animations for the portal, some 3D modelling for the actual structure (if you don't want it to float in mid air), UI map markers to indicate which portals lead to where, and which ones are one way and which ones are A <-> B. I suspect it might take some effort to do this properly. TDLR: It's a really cool idea, but I think there are more things which I would rather have than portals, such as racial symmetry of vehicles (models), completly new game modes, etc. I really like Foundation's idea for a separate deployments zone, connected to a battle zone (with common redline) using portals. This is how portals should be used; As a completly new map / concept / game mode. Then it's worth it. Sure, but this is not a choice between portals OR this other thing, certainly not those two things you mention, "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 213	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:59:00 - [25] - Quote I have some ideas on where these could be useful, I'll post them when I wake up tomorrow (and when I have time to find the map coords...btw can we get the rest of the maps of the outposts?) All I can say is, Now you are thinking with portals Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 649	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:07:00 - [26] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Also can they be "toggled"? For example, could a portal only be Open on a conditional? (For example a portal from MCC to A if A is blue?) This is a VERY good question If possible, this would basically allow similar game modes as Skirmish 1.0, where it's impossible to traverse unless some conditions are met. Imagine a map consisting of multiple independent battlezones, all connected via one-way portals (big enough for vehicles?) which can only be switched by some vehicle action (destroying shields?). Within each zone are normal control points for infantry hacking.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 649	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:12:00 - [27] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: Initial thought; Cool!!! After some further consideration, I am not so sure anymore. The potential negative sides are too great if not handled with uttermost care, even if just providing an escape from the redline. Some maps might be logical, but under no circumstances should these portals be used all the time (on all maps); just because.. Another concern I have is the required development time/effort required to get this from QA to the actual game client. You don't want this to feel "tacked on" or "gimmicky", so you will need animations for the portal, some 3D modelling for the actual structure (if you don't want it to float in mid air), UI map markers to indicate which portals lead to where, and which ones are one way and which ones are A <-> B. I suspect it might take some effort to do this properly. TDLR: It's a really cool idea, but I think there are more things which I would rather have than portals, such as racial symmetry of vehicles (models), completly new game modes, etc. I really like Foundation's idea for a separate deployments zone, connected to a battle zone (with common redline) using portals. This is how portals should be used; As a completly new map / concept / game mode. Then it's worth it. Sure, but this is not a choice between portals OR this other thing, certainly not those two things you mention, I know I guess my point was that I would rather have the portal concept used for the Trello card "New game modes" than applied to existing maps.
Avallo Kantor 469	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:12:00 - [28] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Also can they be "toggled"? For example, could a portal only be Open on a conditional? (For example a portal from MCC to A if A is blue?) This is a VERY good question If possible, this would basically allow similar game modes as Skirmish 1.0, where it's impossible to traverse unless some conditions are met. Imagine a map consisting of multiple independent battlezones, all connected via one-way portals (big enough for vehicles?) which can only be switched by some vehicle action (destroying shields?). Within each zone are normal control points for infantry hacking. The idea wasn't so much separate battlegrounds, as Rattai seems to have indicated we are unable to do such, but instead to allow for things such as -Red Line Escape (If all points held by enemy, portals open to other side of map) - A way to breach into the "city" from the outside. [If city controlled by A team, each outer node controlled by B team would lead to city] - Potential Squad WP expenditure: 3000 WP - Open Portal from MCC to X for 1 Min - "Hackable" portals that when hacked lead one way to other side.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7481	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:18:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively What if they open and close at set intervals? Hack the point to light the wormhole generator. Thirty seconds later it shuts down. Only usable from the hack point, not two way. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5164	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:23:00 - [30] - Quote Question. Is this something that could be used as a hackable installation? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4646	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:30:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively What about making these portals activate in certain conditions (like all objectives being hacked). Then have the exits away from the objectives but in varied enough locations on places like the map sides to provide a team a way to break out from a redline? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Apocalyptic Destroyer Killers 4 Hire 306	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:33:00 - [32] - Quote One way transport !!!!!! One way transport !!! If it was two way ..... scouts and heavies would be most feared coming out the portal True Amarr In Disguise Pain is weakness leaving the body Proto : ADS Pilot, Tanker Ak.0 : Mando, Scout, Assault
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18758	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:37:00 - [33] - Quote I think the safe thing to do is bring in the one way gates only to existing maps. two way gates would require considerable map deisgn CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 649	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:43:00 - [34] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: The idea wasn't so much separate battlegrounds, as Rattai seems to have indicated we are unable to do such, but instead to allow for things such as -Red Line Escape (If all points held by enemy, portals open to other side of map) - A way to breach into the "city" from the outside. [If city controlled by A team, each outer node controlled by B team would lead to city] - Potential Squad WP expenditure: 3000 WP - Open Portal from MCC to X for 1 Min - "Hackable" portals that when hacked lead one way to other side. I have acctually not seen any statement what they can or can not do with the current maps. (I would really love to get one though ) As for the rest of the points, I see the benefits... I really do. I am just afraid it will feel "tacked on" or like a "band-aid" to the current maps and modes.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7482	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:53:00 - [35] - Quote Here's the rub. Is the portal instant and fluid or is it like respawning? AV
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4646	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:56:00 - [36] - Quote I'm thinking you might be able to use these portals to eliminate the need for a red line. Have some portals in the MCC and the exits are actually located in the sky way above the map (can't RE or camp something above the flight ceiling). I think we really need vehicle transportation to be viable though, so the portals would need to be used carefully to not eliminate this role like uplinks pretty much have already. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens 427	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:17:00 - [37] - Quote Could you placer them up high in the sky? If so an idea could be to placer a few one ways inside the mcc for an optional Skyspawn! www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4094	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:24:00 - [38] - Quote Maybe safe portals could activate only if your team don't hold any of the points. I don't like the scanning range on CRU, because it hurts more the one trying to hack than the one spawn killing. But if the portal can't be hacked, it's a good solution. Can portal be placed mid-air to simulate sky drop? Milk my barge > Acquire Key > Open mistery box > quit Dust514
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 975	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:59:00 - [39] - Quote I think this might be worthwhile if they were integrated into brand new maps with a new design philosophy. The only places on current maps these might work are: - Placing them in areas where you feel like you're in a running simulator. IE: The vast open featureless stretches of many maps, usually at the beginning of a battle. This would accelerate the tempo and pace of battles at the beginning, but hey this might be nice. - Placing them in areas that people use dropships to get to. Yes, that way you can't just camp forever in your little tower unless someone else has a dropship (most people don't). - Replacing ladders in some maps.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3616	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:12:00 - [40] - Quote ...What kind of testing where you doing with uplinks that lead to a QA going "******* sweet we have teleporters =ƒÿå=ƒÿç" Ontopic. An idea is to make them capture able let's say each point on the map has one so you cap it near B and now you can jump between A and B. So attackers have to Marshal at C or in spawn and transport over. Leading to starts of take the point...or take portal first. It's a rough idea but would deffently help the maps become more fluid while sorting out the tempo of matches which has always needed work You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7483	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:27:00 - [41] - Quote Incorporate into raid mechanics. Clones must get the loot to a specific spot. Gate if can be controlled provides escape access that can be cut off preventing looting a raided district from being as fast as it could be. And it's one way. AV
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1612	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:45:00 - [42] - Quote Can we use portals to entirely replace ladders? Jebus hates scans.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5165	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:52:00 - [43] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: ...What kind of testing where you doing with uplinks that lead to a QA going "***** sweet we have teleporters =ƒÿå=ƒÿç" QA Guy: Lord Rattati... Rattati: Yes QA Slave? How goes the new testing protocol? QA Guy: Directions unclear. stuck in teleporter. Please advise. Rattati: Hmmmm I will allow the playerbase to decide your fate "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5180	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:57:00 - [44] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. Remove uplinks from the game and replace them with these teleporters. Then make sure that these teleporters have range restrictions, so it encourages building networks. You'll see gameplay shift from fast paced whack-a-mole spawn mechanics to either relying on mobile CRU's from active vehicle support, or maintaining teleportation lines. That could lead to some very interesting gameplay. Either way, the game will get more tactical. Usually banned for being too awesome.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4648	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:13:00 - [45] - Quote Jebus McKing wrote: Can we use portals to entirely replace ladders? Yes please. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1613	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:36:00 - [46] - Quote Can we disable some portals at the beginning of the match and make them go online after a couple of minutes? Jebus hates scans.
Weznof Nalek Providentia Aeternam 88	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:40:00 - [47] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively This is a bad idea. Barge transport exist for carring players from point A to B. Barge transport will become useless whereas normally they should play this role. If you want my opinion, improving the transport system in first. And follow suggestion of Judge Rhadamanthus in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWUmID56Gw The player transport is a good topic, but focus on the things you already create and improve first. You create the barge transport, improve the system. After that, you can consider offering of alternative possibilities with your jump portals.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5182	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:49:00 - [48] - Quote Weznof Nalek wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively This is a bad idea. Barge transport exist for carring players from point A to B. Barge transport will become useless whereas normally they should play this role. If you want my opinion, improving the transport system in first. And follow suggestion of Judge Rhadamanthus in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWUmID56Gw The player transport is a good topic, but focus on the things you already create and improve first. You create the barge transport, improve the system. After that, you can consider offering of alternative possibilities with your jump portals. Barge transportation is already considered useless except for the early game point rush. If anything, it becomes viable once you replace uplinks with teleporters. If your team is comprised of a stronger vehicle force they could be a more ideal solution than dealing with scouts who's sole purpose is to severe logistical lines. This presents two viable choices in dealing with a situation, rather than the single one we have now (uplink spam). Usually banned for being too awesome.
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1614	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:53:00 - [49] - Quote For portals that go both ways we need a way to prevent people from stepping in and out continuously, so we don't get the same problems as we do with hopping in and out of LAVs. Jebus hates scans.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7487	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:27:00 - [50] - Quote I'm liking the idea of these artificial wormholes being one way. I also think that they should cause significant damage to the person entering them, to represent that humans and wormholes don't mix well. In fact according to lore, wormholes do significant damage to a human body unless properly shielded (in a ship). Make it so that choosing to use one is an absolute risk, and make them one way. If camping is a problem, make the wormhole terminus generate a radiation zone that starts damaging suits and vehicles and halts regen nearby. A lot of balance issues with portals can be addressed by pushing how dangerous, experimental and poorly understood as they are. AV

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 897	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:39:00 - [51] - Quote I've got to say, i love the idea of hacking and counter hacking a portal gate/gates. Hack a portal to keep it open for a window of time, hacking the enemies portal shuts it down for a period. To force open a specific portal (whether red or blue) you've got to spend the WP. They would be nearly as crucial as CRUs or Letters in terms of rapid deployment. They also need to be few in number, far enough away from each other to prevent camping. Perhaps have Three gates availale but only two can be active at a time. Red team would have to spread their forces very thin, and they can shut down one by hacking, but the other two will activate. Choosing which one to shut down should be tactical, as in 5 point skirmish, lets shut down the portal closest to D, forcing the enemy to portal in from either near their home point or the city, or spawn in on an uplink, but not portal in where the fight is going on. Before worries about uplinks , there little point in 10 second spawns in the MCC lets say and then walking to the your own portal and then spending a second or two teleporting to the portal in the battlefield. A decent uplink in a tactical position will still be more value than a portal, but portals would become a strategic concern. It will spell the final death knell of the Mobile CRU. Getting in to battle safely rather than spawn in a strangers dropship and be dropped off god knows where. Portals should only be one way. There is no going back. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Corbina Ninja ItalPetrolCemeTermoTessilFarmaMetalChimica 1243	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:41:00 - [52] - Quote please! use jump portal to reach rooftops campers spot without dropship «Questa è l'Italia del futuro: un paese di musichette mentre fuori c'è la morte.»
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 12105	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:54:00 - [53] - Quote I love it. I proposed an installation idea for this a long long time ago, and it just seemed like one of those ideas that could never ever happen because Dust can't evolve beyond basic shooter mechanics. Do it. Consider creating uplink variants that can act as 1 way exit points for the portals. You go through a portal, you see the spawn screen (but you're not dead), you can select the other portal as an exit point, or you can select some special uplink variants deployed by players as your exit point. Portal to portal should be two way travel, while portal to special uplink should be one way. Also, I don't believe you (yet). This has to be some elaborate pre-April Fool's prank to get my hopes up. Support 'Keshava' for the new Gallente HAV name in honor of Cat Merc's cat which recently passed away.
Grimmiers 810	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:01:00 - [54] - Quote Sounds intersting, but like someone else mentioned I'm imagining it being confusing and looking out of place if there's no art and ui work done. It would've also been a cool installation drop if those were a thing. I'm all for it if it can conjure up a new gamemode.
Ghural WarRavens 383	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:05:00 - [55] - Quote Terrible idea. For two reasons. Firstly it reduces the usefulness of dropships and LAVs for transporting troops. Secondly we already have a one way portal. It's called the mobile CRU. The mobile CRU provides far more interesting and dynamic gameplay than a static portal. The only use for portals would be in interior only maps, where you can't utilise mobile CRU's of vehicles.
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 302	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:12:00 - [56] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Jebus McKing wrote: Can we use portals to entirely replace ladders? Yes please. If anything this is how it should be used. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15379	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:16:00 - [57] - Quote https://i.imgur.com/fCZFMf1.gif Could we get an explanation of how such jury rigging happened? Was there unused teleportation code? lol Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15379	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:23:00 - [58] - Quote Could these teleports: A. Be owned by a certain team after a hack? So only the team who hacked it can use it? B. Be destroyed? C. Be owned by a certain team for owning a capture point? D. Have a cooldown timer between teleports? I have plenty of ideas if these are all possible. Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15380	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:30:00 - [59] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. Remove uplinks from the game and replace them with these teleporters. Then make sure that these teleporters have range restrictions, so it encourages building and maintaining networks (like actual logistics work). It would also encourage waiting on a needle rather than just spawning back into the action 50 feet away from where you died. You'll see gameplay shift from fast paced whack-a-mole spawn mechanics to either relying on mobile CRU's from active vehicle support, or maintaining teleportation lines. That could lead to some very interesting gameplay. Either way, the game will get more tactical. I absolutely love this! Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 234	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:39:00 - [60] - Quote if there are no down sides to my idea, I suggest you put 6 of these portals on a every CRU and around objectives which are only usable if the specified objective or CRU is captured, this would allow players to choose exactly where they want to spawn on objectives. (this may be a lot f work so this is a small priority idea) My main suggestion is having 1 'entering' portal that transports you to 4 other portals very close by, the 'exit' portals could be near the allied MCC in skirmish and domination but are closer to the left and right edges of the map allowing players that are losing to more easily flank the enemy, until the stomping enemy retreats or dies. These portals could be positioned on large maps like skirmish to reduce walking distance from the rear spawn point to home objectives, don't do it domination maps, they are usually too small. I liked a suggestion by others of having 2 safe zones (1 for each team) where once you spawn there, you use a 1 way infantry portal to enter the battlefield near the rear spawn point behind the MCC, that has no redline in skirmish and domination, but you better give them a supply depot and a big roof at the safe zone to prevent orbit strikes on that safe zone (or prevent to overhead map camera from reaching to safe spot so orbitals cant be placed accurately there, having no roof would help prevent problems with calling in vehicles). I would suggest you allow allied players to spawn in that safe zone during the entire match, but make those players be teleported to a sky portal (sky portal is at a high elevation that is higher than the MCC but is very close to the MCC on the horizontal plane, where you die if you land on top of the MCC just like if you land on heat vents on the gallente research facility) in 3 minutes if they don't exit the safe area after that time period, which allows them to potentially drop behind enemy forces that are very close to your allied MCC. (Or you die while AFKing because you didn't use inertia dampener). If you use my forced sky spawn idea, make a warning notification that a player will be forcibly deployed in 30 seconds. Another suggestion I read, is that you create bigger portals for vehicles from those safe zones which lead to the very back of the battlefield behind the allied MCC, allowing players to call vehicles safely in safe zones and then deploy them onto the battlefield at 2 different locations near the allied MCC using portals. (If they don't exit the safe zone in 3 minutes while they are using a vehicle, they will be terminated, instant explosion). Multiple offences of not deploying to the battlefield results in being kicked from the match with no SP or ISK gain (such as 3 offences). I like the idea of allowing vehicles to destroy all the 'infantry only' portals of there enemy that lead to the battlefield, which in combination with the condition that a team has captured all objectives, creates an instant win, and additional decryptor keys as rewards. While allowing the vehicles portals to be indestructible and not needed for an instant win, it would allow a team that is being stomped to deploy vehicles at any time to help push out against the enemy and so the allied team can push past there allied MCC. I would add to the idea by making the safe zone have 5, 1 way portals, which lead to 5 'exit only' infantry portals placed near the allied MCC allowing multiple points to flank only the enemy near the allied MCC.

Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 396	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:43:00 - [61] - Quote Other people have mentioned this but are they able to be toggled and can this be activated by players? Because if so I'd like the portals hidden across the map, able to be activated for a short time with an active scanner like device (no solo heavies), for ambushing locations/sneak hack a point Also, if we're being fancy free in our ideas. How about use them as a pve scenario, deployed on the planet you have to explore and find portals using the scanner to get the loot. Preferably warbarge components. Or if you're set on PvP, ambush mode, but you've got to find the portal, go through, scan the ruins/blueprints and escape/survive a countdown to win ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Nocturnal Soul 5651	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:43:00 - [62] - Quote [url]http:// https://charbelmaklouf.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nasa-portals.jpg[/url] I've always( just now) imagined the portals in dust to look like huge MCC created rifts... Probably be a cool idea for exploration in Legion too if that's still a thing (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!! The Incursions are back... and they're golden baby!
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 628	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:16:00 - [63] - Quote I feel like portals would be perfect to create more flow in certain areas of certain maps. They could add viability to height differences on maps (Currently, the only way to scale heights is dropships or ladders, both of which are very vulnerable and far from stealthy outside of cloaked scouts), as well as make certain positions easier to assault. Some of the elevated camping spots could be in need of a teleporter connection. Just make sure to not make LAVs/Dropships redundant. ...Then again, who the **** uses dropships outside of the beginning of a match?
Vyuru Algintal Core Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:22:00 - [64] - Quote Is it possible, or wanted, to add a bit of variance on where you come through at? You might be able to have say, 3-4 "spawn" spots that you could end up at after going through the portal. That might help eliminate, or deter, camping. Or it might just be easier to have say, 4 portals and forget randomness. That way it's easier to stage an assault. I really, really like Foundation's proposal. My main thought though is that this is something to be careful about implementing on current maps, but go hog wild with it on any new maps. It might even fit in well with more of a city/industrial themed map. The frontier and outposts are taken, now the enemy is porting into home.
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 438	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:49:00 - [65] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively Portal Vehicle Transport Vehicle with a Portal somewhere on the dropship or Hav Transport only No Guns maybe a limit on how many are the field Or you have two one in and one out Dropship to tower uplinks up there ,enter Portal transport vehicle come ou at other portal transport vehicle
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3618	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:05:00 - [66] - Quote Transporters in EvE lore is also long overdue tbh =ƒÿÇ=ƒÿÇ. Think everyone agrees the idea is good just needs careful work. Getting rid of uplinks in exchange for spawn network and vercs would make the meta strats vastly more intresting than it currently is. "SPAM UPLINKS BOYS =ƒÿå" You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 829	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:44:00 - [67] - Quote So you basically want to bring Team Fortress 2 teleporters to dust. Hows that gonna work out? You capture that thing like a CRU, walk trough it and you get put on whereever it leads to? That wouldnt be so bad cause people allready camp regular CRU's with remote explosives to kill players that spawn on it. The thing is you willingly go trough it regardless if its dangerous or safe. Its a risk vs reward scenario like in eve where you have no clue whats on the other side of the gate. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Avallo Kantor 472	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:56:00 - [68] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively Portal Vehicle Transport Vehicle with a Portal somewhere on the dropship or Hav Transport only No Guns maybe a limit on how many are the field Or you have two one in and one out Dropship to tower uplinks up there ,enter Portal transport vehicle come ou at other portal transport vehicle Rattai already stated that they would be dev created, not player created. By that he means they would have to be coded into a map, they aren't dynamic enough to be linked to player deployed items, such as vehicles.
Logi Bro Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 3473	Posted - 2015.03.04 15:33:00 - [69] - Quote These portals, can anything other than players go through them? Can a grenade be thrown in, or bullets shot through, if you pointed an active scanner into one, would it scan from the mouth of the other side of the portal, or just scan past it? Can we see what's on the other side, or will it just be like those portals they showed in No Man's Sky where you are just walking into a blur before emerging on the other side? This idea is awesome, but unless we have every minute detail on the matter, our suggestions could just be complete garbage. SP Sinks? Fixed.
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 79	Posted - 2015.03.04 16:29:00 - [70] - Quote CCP needs to think a little bit about why you want this and listen to the problem and apply this the best way to solve said problem. The problem I hear that most needs fixing is being able to dig yourself out of the redline. If they make this new sockets with conditions then please make this a one way portal for the team that is being 5 capped. Otherwise it becomes like orbitals, in good fights a nice way to turn the tides, in a bad fight, salt to wounds. I just don't want a new exploit being added for non-vehicle using players to get stomped at. PS2 has a decent system with fixed platforms. TF2 has the planted TP but that could get out of hand. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 22447	Posted - 2015.03.04 16:31:00 - [71] - Quote ITT thinking with portals Please take this opportunity to tweak certain map designs (and possibly the spawn system?) - there are some rather depressing quirks about some of the maps. Gallente Guide
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 8086	Posted - 2015.03.04 16:47:00 - [72] - Quote Could portals be a capturable asset? 4 out of 5 dentists agree that orange is not a sound.
Sigourney Reever Hyasyoda Terrestrial Acquisitions Firm 80	Posted - 2015.03.04 16:47:00 - [73] - Quote How about you put this idea away for later. Its a good one, you can make it work, keep it under your hat. What we need is map assets (sockets, terrains, and moods) and game modes (at least 4-5 more) and some work on randomizing the rotations (of everything) a little bit more. If everything wasn't as repetitive as it is now, you'd go a long way towards not needing alternative deployment methods. It's a great concept, keep it 'working' and use it later, but really, its not something Dust "Needs" with so many other things not fully fleshed out.
xTheSiLLyRaBBiTx Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 388	Posted - 2015.03.04 16:53:00 - [74] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: For example: I'll use Border Gulch, as it seems the obvious choice for something like this... 1.)1-way transporter from the blue MCC spawn room to the little indent in the wall on the roof of C-12. 2.)1 way transporter from the blue ground spawn to the same indent. Mirror that on the other side for the red team. 3.)2-way transporter from the back of K-13 to the slanted roof you can see in E-9 Suddenly the mostly ignored Delta becomes a power-point in Skirmish, able to mount a strong attack onto the center point. I am loving these. Please, everyone, think about and propose great spots, to make maps more dynamic, unused objectives, those pain points you hate. Be as specific as possible. Interesting new concept. As long as it can be destroyed though like an installation. *\|LOGi GOD\|* Director of Fatal Absolution
Samantha Hunyz Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 178	Posted - 2015.03.04 17:04:00 - [75] - Quote If this is done terribly this would R.I.P. sniping. Don't allow these portals to automatically move players from the red directly inside complexes, otherwise many maps there would never be a good place to snipe from. When I look down my scope, all I see are dead people.
Ku Shala UNITED MERCINARY AND PILOTS ALLIANCE 1283	Posted - 2015.03.04 17:20:00 - [76] - Quote could you have the portals turn on and off depending on what is within a certain proximity? like if reds a with in 10-15 m the portal turns off? can two one way portals share the same exit? can a portal entrance have 2 exits based on attacker or defender status? *-¦a+ó a+ú-Æa+äla+ä (CK-0 Specialist)* Caldari Loyalist Superior technology will privale.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3034	Posted - 2015.03.04 17:24:00 - [77] - Quote They'll be camped regardless of efforts to prevent. I think it's a bad idea that can't, not won't be implemented properly. It will be abused. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 6067	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:23:00 - [78] - Quote Could act as an alternative to ladders... Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8911	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:31:00 - [79] - Quote Here's a few I've got. Skim Junction D13 < - > M13 Open, playable area that's never used. Requires a lot of walking to get to anywhere but could be an interesting power-play area. I'd imagine these areas would be used mostly by AV teams trying to chase down faster vehicles who use the entire outpost as cover, as it happens a lot. Spine Crescent MCC - > G11 MCC - > E11 No-one ever goes out here even though it's in the playable area because there's not enough cover to live long enough. Placing portals there from the MCCs allows both sides to get out of the redline and into the playable area while also being at a stand-off with any new enemy portal spawns. It forces both sides to have to cover three points (two redline, one portal) and would make it easier to break free. Would also make for some great 'first-strike' gameplay if both teams utilize the portals at the start of the match. Also has the gloriousness of restricting sniper/railgun game-play from the road, which does happen occasionally. Line Harvest MCC - > G10 (base of the tower) MCC - > F6 (base of the tower) F11 - > F8 (top of the mountain to the center table) G5 - > F8 (same) *DO NOT PLACE PORTALS ON THE ROOFTOPS - IT'LL JUST CREATE CAMPING* Both of these locations allow both teams to sort of 'jump-start' the gameplay by going for the farther reaching objectives. Most times, teams will start with D and B objectives, respectively, and work toward the other two. Northern team usually has an advantage due to proximity of spawn and objectives as well as cover from orbitals, so it'd do well to have the MCC - > G10 portal -slightly closer- to Alpha for the southern team to have a chance. As far as the one-way portals from the mountains to the center table, having ways for players to circumvent having to use ladders to get into CQC on the center table will reduce camping therein and break the constant stale-mates we always see on that kitten table. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 6067	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:36:00 - [80] - Quote Jump Portals ... this game just got 20% more Sci-Fi. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 536	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:56:00 - [81] - Quote The way I see it, this will only work if the portal is an objective in and of itself, that must be fought over and controlled. If that is NOT the case then: [/b]I do not see how this remedies redlining any more than say.. additional hard spawn points. Functionally, there is no difference between spawning in the red line, and taking a portal midway, or just spawning mid way.[b] Reduces usefulness of vehicles CONSIDERABLY If the placement is done by the designer, be careful not to run into more "hard coded, can't be changed" kind of issues down the line as new game modes pop up and new toys change the meta. If instead you make it so that both teams fight over the use of the portal system to gain an advantage, you create a more dynamic play where a team has to decide if splitting forces to actually defend null cannon installations AND the portal console (which ideally would not be near a null cannon) is worthwhile. Sidenote: What happened to the idea of Damage Type Null cannons (Laser, Hybrid, Explosive)?? and Null Cannons that could be damaged (reduced effectiveness) by large turrets? These ideas were truly great and would perhaps play into this portal thing for more depth.
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 861	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:08:00 - [82] - Quote I think that this is a good idea because: If these portals can be damaged to the point of being "offline", then we would successfully have introduced a new objective into the game, and give players like Logis and Scouts, and even vehicles, something that they can be the best at. Logis could change the flow of a battle by maintaining different jump portals - they would not have to be tethered to heavy to be useful. Scouts could change the flow of battle by quickly reclaiming the portals, allowing their team to move extremely quickly around the map. Finally, vehicles will actually have things that they can do that infantry can't - destroy/disable jump portals. I think that this is a bad idea because: It will further marginalize vehicle transport, which is almost by definition team oriented. Why would anyone wait for a team mate to call a drop ship with an mCRU if they can use a jump portal. If Breakin's suggestion is taken and using jump portals causes some type of damage to the person entering it, that would mitigate this downside. I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
Heimdallr69 Negative-Feedback. 4783	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:16:00 - [83] - Quote I think if you've been redlined for 3 minutes the enemy team automatically uses a doomsday that ends the match.. Though sky portals would be nice, they should constantly move so they can't be camped like cru's Removed inappropriate content - CCP Logibro
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 894	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:31:00 - [84] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Incorporate into raid mechanics. Clones must get the loot to a specific spot. Gate if can be controlled provides escape access that can be cut off preventing looting a raided district from being as fast as it could be. And it's one way. THIS 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 894	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:43:00 - [85] - Quote I like the idea of JumpPortals, adding them will definitley add a nice layer of depth to overall gameplay. That being said I think that if the idea is they are to be utilized for escape from a camped redline then the exit points should actually be randomized somehow, both to avoid camping the exits as well as to not reward redline campers with an easy escape. They can escape but where exactly to is undetermined. The reality I've seen with Redline Camps/Stomps (having spent substantial time in both) is that DUST has the most underutilized redline I think I've ever seen in competitive shooter gaming. The redline here is a mile across, and the only reason anyone gets "stuck" behind it is largely because the only method they use to leave is to run straight from a spawn to the battlefield. Which in camping scenarios equals running right at the team waiting for you. I also would like to see these iterated with some sort of equipment available as an exit designator, similar to links. Yes, this will enable "blob-jumping" from area to area but, wtf, so what? They blob leaves a point to jump to another the one they left is now unprotected and vulnerable. Some limits on carrying/use (or max spawn/deployment use like vehicles) to limit the "whack-a-mole"/impact on vehicle use and it should be good! All in all, nice idea, would love to see them viable at some point, would really love to see some of the other long-overdue fixes done first coughLogiBuffscough 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 894	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:44:00 - [86] - Quote Heimdallr69 wrote: I think if you've been redlined for 3 minutes the enemy team automatically uses a doomsday that ends the match.. Though sky portals would be nice, they should constantly move so they can't be camped like cru's SkyPortals JumpDrop the NullCannon missles onto the redline. XD Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 427	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:56:00 - [87] - Quote GÇª. I really don't want a game like this to have TOO many add-ons borrowed from our Star Trek childhood, or from other Sci-Fi shooter games that have Dust's mindset. If the game is meant to be about getting groups of individuals to cohere as a team and cooperatively get tasks done better and more effectively than trying to do it solo---okay, I (and many others) am learning that and enjoying my increasing skill---Cool Game. But if you insert into the game ANY device that allows an individual player to (not necessarily increase her ability to win a match, but definitely increase her ability to "pop up, injure or kill random bystander, and use a magic disappearing button to say Ha-Ha, you can't get me back"..., her "fun" is going to annoy and block other players from enjoying your game. We won't ALL use these devices THAT way... But look at the arguable "problem" that is creeping up on us now with players using an RE as an an imp-grenade to kill a single opponentGÇª just because "it's fun", and you can't get get the chance to shoot back", ...or look at the hard time we had dealing with (arguably still NOT full dealt with) the players who used cloaks as the magic inviso-power to "shotty" players all day with no concern about the progress of the match whatsoever,GÇª I think we can admit there are always enough outlander players among us who WILL use these devices to be pests and imps. In a game that's about controlling access to the map in order to beat the other team, the cool thing about ladders is they take time to cross (so the enemy has a chance to observe and stop you)---the controllable thing about cloaking is a scout crossing the map at some point has to decloak (and give the enemy a chance to stop him). But 6 "transporter beam bays" around the map---will make a Dust map un-controllable. I know many feel the pain getting caught in a "REDLINE" (yes, it is an irritating fate that we bring on ourselves sometimes). But, how is the secondary way of winning a match, "Clone Depletion" ever going to be possible anymore, if your mercs now have to spend "Tom-n-Jerry time" chasing after players who'll perfect the habit of dashing from portal to portal to portal, and giggling? I know Portals sound like a nice piece of Sci-Fi, bit YikesGÇª it scares me like Cloaks scared me. Nooo thanks. If CCP can pull it off WITHOUT the ugly consequences I've envisioning, well, it's your game--you will do what you think is best. But personally, I don't think you can... Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne... No story can have life without writers and publishers.
PLAYSTTION Corrosive Synergy RISE of LEGION 609	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:43:00 - [88] - Quote ale it player placeable and have it be the Gallente placeable equipment. Certain amounts of portal jumps...etc Gassault Calogi and more. Respec Pending. `- Open Beta Vet - 38 mil sp - - Director of Corrosive Synergy -`
Ghost Kaisar Negative-Feedback 10273	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:17:00 - [89] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: I think that this is a good idea because: If these portals can be damaged to the point of being "offline", then we would successfully have introduced a new objective into the game, and give players like Logis and Scouts, and even vehicles, something that they can be the best at. Logis could change the flow of a battle by maintaining different jump portals - they would not have to be tethered to heavy to be useful. Scouts could change the flow of battle by quickly reclaiming the portals, allowing their team to move extremely quickly around the map. Finally, vehicles will actually have things that they can do that infantry can't - destroy/disable jump portals. I think that this is a bad idea because: It will further marginalize vehicle transport, which is almost by definition team oriented. Why would anyone wait for a team mate to call a drop ship with an mCRU if they can use a jump portal. If Breakin's suggestion is taken and using jump portals causes some type of damage to the person entering it, that would mitigate this downside. Even Better: Logis have to capture jump portals. Scouts can use both friendly and enemy portals Born Deteis Caldari. Rejected by my Kinsman. Found a new family in the Vherokior Tribe. Nobody messes with my family
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1018	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:35:00 - [90] - Quote Quick thoughts: - I don't see how this mitigates redlining. It merely displaces where redlining happens. - One of the biggest issues in public skirmish matches in Dust is that only rarely everyone knows where the fighting is currently happening. I assume this would worsen the problem. My main problem isn't a lack of options on where to go. My problem is 16 team members going to 5 different locations using two different paths to each and arriving there at different times too. There is no need for additional movement options. - I don't advocate adding stuff because the technical possibility is cool. The technology is the solution to the problem that the gamedesign generates. What is the gamedesign issue we're trying to solve? - Congratulations on having a QA department. - What exactly was your QA engineer trying to do when he suddenly arrived at having created a teleporter?

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1849	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:46:00 - [91] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. You can do it but make sure it's not point to point. Just areas. Maybe from one city side to the other. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17461	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:46:00 - [92] - Quote Probably mentioned but do we even have to use these as deployable equipment? Can they not be the ladders or interactive transport options players can use to move around different kinds of sockets? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 8231	Posted - 2015.03.04 22:10:00 - [93] - Quote I think the two-way portals could be used in certain spots to prevent some of the camping that goes on in high places. For example, in Line Harvest, you could have a two-way portal to the top of each of the towers so anyone going up against a team who has a Uplink spamming Dropship pilot can have some means of getting up there and popping the links. Also, this would give snipers a means to find a perch without it being inaccessible to sniper hunters. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Taipaen Loose Cannon Security 24	Posted - 2015.03.04 22:30:00 - [94] - Quote Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, time is short for me at the moment. Camping the exit points of one-way portals could be addressed by having the "spawn" point be a bit varied. Perhaps make it a random spawn point within a certain radius on the map (15m?), similar to the smart deploys in Ambush mode. This would make them fairly predictable to use but much more difficult to camp than just standing there aiming at a single spot. RE's would require a lot of luck using effectively as well.
anaboop NECROM0NGERS 159	Posted - 2015.03.05 00:59:00 - [95] - Quote What if the portal destination was set in increments to spawnat different locations Fully sick Anaboop trading card
RedBleach LeSanglant Hellstorm Inc General Tso's Alliance 768	Posted - 2015.03.05 01:10:00 - [96] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. I can't speak to transports. Speaking to Logistics. Any Teleport will automatically diminish Uplink Placement. How much it will affect placement and earnings is more at the heart of the matter. Good Making them fit with the environment of one base to another construct or crate/depot area makes sense if they were placed Lore-wise for moving shipments or just allowing a Logi/Technician to more easily repair or replace difficult to reach machinery. Or perhaps lookout/monitoring stations where a ladder doesn't make sense. - This is good. Bad If we are saying they are battle place by the opposing sides before the start of the clone war then they would need to be placed in more tactical situations meaning the tops of spires, common rally nodes behind cover etc. - and I can't really agree with that. That makes them simply set up for battle and drives the fight blobs to specific areas to be perma watched. As to how it will affect Uplink placement... wow. If they are placed at the already common spawn areas outside of objectives that could hugely impact the reasons for carrying uplinks or more than 1. Commonly 1 is placed at the objective and the other is at a fall back area. SO, making the teleport areas in more commonly open areas would not diminish, as much, the use of uplinks. These would be more of the common base areas and depot/crate areas talked of earlier. As to where specifically on a map.... that will take some research. The Logi Code. Creator, Believer, Follower
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL 438	Posted - 2015.03.05 01:42:00 - [97] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Luther Mandrix wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively Portal Vehicle Transport Vehicle with a Portal somewhere on the dropship or Hav Transport only No Guns maybe a limit on how many are the field Or you have two one in and one out Dropship to tower uplinks up there ,enter Portal transport vehicle come ou at other portal transport vehicle Rattai already stated that they would be dev created, not player created. By that he means they would have to be coded into a map, they aren't dynamic enough to be linked to player deployed items, such as vehicles. Future tech
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 234	Posted - 2015.03.05 02:21:00 - [98] - Quote I would suggest putting 1 way portals at the base of some narrow towers to allow shotgun scout, nova knife scouts, and HMG sentinels, and shotgun assaults to assassinate enemy snipers and heavy forge gunners on top of the tower, and assassinate large amounts of enemies that are camping those specific places. This would mean that a team would require at least 2 players on a tower in order to attack players below and have 1 player watch the portal in case of a stealth attack. (using dropships instead would allow players to use missile turrents or blaster turrents at long 50m distances that are powerful, so hovering dropships would still be usefull). Although dropships with only the pilot to hop out and assassinate players on towers, that would be made redundant. Possible portal locations could be: Skim Junction: H12 and H15 allows 1 way access to the top of the towers from the ground or (if you think its a better idea, leading to currently existing platforms with railings at mid height of the towers, they are built into the towers already) Spine Crescent: D9, G9 at base of towers to allow 1 way access to the top of towers, they can jump off anyway but reveal themselves if they jump off using inertia dampeners. (to allow access out of the city) F4 with a 1 way 'enter' portal leading out of city with a 'exit' portal outside the walls. Line Harvest: 1 way portal on the ground in G10 allowing 1 way access to the mid height of the tower where there is already a small platform with a railing where players can snipe and use rail rifles with a good height advantage. (not the top of the tower) H7 where a 1 way portal on the ground leads to mid height of the tower to a small platform with a railing that already exists that is built into the tower (snipers can defend objectives easier but be more exposed cause its a railing, its not solid cover that they can duck behind) F6, 1 way portal to mid height of the tower F10, 1 way portal to mid height of the tower Most of these portal locations lead to places on tower that drop ships are not currently used to reach.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1824	Posted - 2015.03.05 02:30:00 - [99] - Quote No need for teleport pads or launchers, they are kind of an immersion breaker. Also, they would really really make the loved transport role of vehicles weaker. But consider: Use of the portal mechanic as elevator to top of a skyscraper is okay. Yes, that would be good. Because, of the top of a skyscraper can be reached by dropship, it needs an alternative. But ladders are impractical, and no one wants the horror of fighting a 30 floor spiral staircase... (oh well maybe someone would but some people stick needles onto themselves so...) Looking at both sides of the coin. Even Aurum one.
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 144	Posted - 2015.03.05 04:52:00 - [100] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. When I read your initial post, I was amazed. As I read on ithought about this exactly. Logistics are used to create limited use portals already, and reducing travel time reduces lav usefulness(which us shaky at vest already). I also have some concern about it potentially making minja more useless than ever, but perhaps it will help me win the lav race to the objective at early game. This is an awesome and powerful concept. I can't make up my mind about it but I definitely want to see it happen. PS, still begging that twitter follow, I really wanna DM you about something important (IMO) that isnt appropriate for the forum Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face

Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 144	Posted - 2015.03.05 04:58:00 - [101] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: The way I see it, this will only work if the portal is an objective in and of itself, that must be fought over and controlled. If that is NOT the case then: [/b]I do not see how this remedies redlining any more than say.. additional hard spawn points. Functionally, there is no difference between spawning in the red line, and taking a portal midway, or just spawning mid way.[b] Reduces usefulness of vehicles CONSIDERABLY If the placement is done by the designer, be careful not to run into more "hard coded, can't be changed" kind of issues down the line as new game modes pop up and new toys change the meta. If instead you make it so that both teams fight over the use of the portal system to gain an advantage, you create a more dynamic play where a team has to decide if splitting forces to actually defend null cannon installations AND the portal console (which ideally would not be near a null cannon) is worthwhile. Sidenote: What happened to the idea of Damage Type Null cannons (Laser, Hybrid, Explosive)?? and Null Cannons that could be damaged (reduced effectiveness) by large turrets? These ideas were truly great and would perhaps play into this portal thing for more depth. Re:side note: agree wholeheartedly Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1064	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:09:00 - [102] - Quote This is quite the can of worms to be opened. So many different angles we could approach this from... It's an interesting feature, but do we do it just because we can? I think there could be some very good features with this, but any teleporting would have to be pretty severely limited. Like you mentioned in the OP, this would be great for preventing marathons between Objectives, especially for new players. Here's some brainstorm ideas. One way link: A player could drop a 'link' in a certain location. At any time the player could bring up his left arm digital interface pad thingy, and pressing R1 would teleport the player back to his pad. It would be interesting to have a scout batman into a building, hack a point and teleport out. I would propose having a range limit. 50-100 meters or so, also, about a 5 second materialization period where the player is vulnerable. If you see a player teleport you know they're still close. The pad could be picked up and retrieved, otherwise you'd have to get a new one at a supply depot. Two way installations: Installations placed on the map in semi-strategic locations. Owning two or more points cold transport you between them. A point would have to be held for 15 seconds to become active. Only one clone can use the point at a time with a 5 second cooldown between clones to prevent a giant blob from dropping in. Who cares what some sniper has to say. **--CCP, let's push for the license of Dust/Legion on both current Gen consoles-
xTheSiLLyRaBBiTx Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 390	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:12:00 - [103] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively Would this option be considered an installation??? *\|LOGi GOD\|* Director of Fatal Absolution
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2526	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:47:00 - [104] - Quote Sigourney Reever wrote: How about you put this idea away for later. Its a good one, you can make it work, keep it under your hat. What we need is map assets (sockets, terrains, and moods) and game modes (at least 4-5 more) and some work on randomizing the rotations (of everything) a little bit more. If everything wasn't as repetitive as it is now, you'd go a long way towards not needing alternative deployment methods. It's a great concept, keep it 'working' and use it later, but really, its not something Dust "Needs" with so many other things not fully fleshed out. I agree. Portals are an interesting idea and it's easy to get excited for what they might offer. But adding portals now with other systems incomplete or dysfunctional won't teach us much about what portals really have to offer. Portals may require a fair bit of care and feeding before we get it right. We have lots of things that require dev and player attention. The one place portals might justify time invested in them would be to devalue redline sniping as a viable tactic. We could spawn behind deep redline and use portals to throw us past all that redline to a half-dozen approach points spread around the friendly end of the map. That being said, there are most likely other ways to address redline camping with current assets and judicious rule changes. PSN: RationalSpark
Brush Master Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1466	Posted - 2015.03.05 14:12:00 - [105] - Quote My only question is, will this hurt the role of vehicles even more? Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? True Logi. Flying DS from the start. @dustreports
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7525	Posted - 2015.03.05 14:54:00 - [106] - Quote Brush Master wrote: My only question is, will this hurt the role of vehicles even more? If portals are limited and one way? No. Especially if running a tank through it is an option. AV
Ku Shala UNITED MERCINARY AND PILOTS ALLIANCE 1284	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:03:00 - [107] - Quote I could see these as a replacement to stairs or ladders, short range so you can see the entrance and exit. could be really fun to have a room with like 20 of them in it and have some really messed up peak-a-boo *-¦a+ó a+ú-Æa+äla+ä (CK-0 Specialist)* Caldari Loyalist Superior technology will privale.
Ansla Valier One Corps 23	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:10:00 - [108] - Quote Very cool. It's hard to come up with specific examples but I know I'd like asymmetry a lot. Eg not having 2 one way portals to the same spot where both teams can have a weird portal war lol. More the idea that both teams have quick access to different strategic areas of the map that aren't primary objectives using one-way portals. I'm only for this idea if the portal entrances can be accessed by both sides without a huge amount of effort. That way you could cut them off if it starts getting really bad. Having this be a place vehicles can't easily get to would be nice. Otherwise you risk hurting LAV and dropship usage early on in the match. I'm sure specifics would be way more helpful but this is all I have for now lol.
Booby Tuesdays Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 1367	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:39:00 - [109] - Quote I can see a couple ways these could be very useful. They become active when either... (A) The enemy team has captured all objectives (B) Your MCC has lost it's shields To keep them from being camped... (A) There are 12 total locations (B) These locations are chosen randomly to prevent advanced knowledge of where the enemy team will come from These could be invaluable against roof campers. Everyone says, "just fly a dropship up there and take 'em out!". That's easier said than done when they have Forges and Swarms waiting as well. Would be really cool if they took you from the redline and dropped you from the sky. Half-Assed Forum Warrior / Half-Decent Commando / Damn Good Logi / Matari Loyalty 7
HOLY PERFECTION UNIVERSAL C.A.R.N.A.G.E 55	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:45:00 - [110] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively CAAAAAAMMMMPPPINNNG *I WILL WIN... DESTINY*

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 874	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:55:00 - [111] - Quote Boulder Rim - Skirmish and Dom (Possibly ambush) : D6 to G10 I11 to F10 D6 - Under building. G10 - Rooftop. I11 - In one of the buildings, room at the top of stairs. F10 - Rooftop Will make the rooftops less of a 'first to fly up there and camp it' and more of a strategic option for getting close to A. Fracture Road - Domination: E7 to G7 H6 to G7 E7 - Skirm A. H6 - Building across from skirm B. G7 - top of the tower. Stop people camping the tower, while adding an alternate area to fight over, when kicked off the pipes Depending on how the 'portals' work, it could be a nice way to make unused areas of the map more important... However if it's an 'exact' position, then camping the portals will become a massive pain and completely ruin the idea.
Finn Colman Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 151	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:58:00 - [112] - Quote My concern, as an often underutilized transport pilot, is how this will effect vehicle based transport. I'd love for this to be implemented as long as it doesn't ruin the role of transport pilots. Jack-of-most-trades, master of one.
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 3172	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:08:00 - [113] - Quote You are using the Unreal engine. For the love of all things good please please remake the classic Facing Worlds map from Unreal Tournament with a portal to the top of each tower!!!!!! Would make me so happy. Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 724	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:01:00 - [114] - Quote Can the portals be hackable? As in, only the team that controls them can use them? Because then they could be put on large maps halfway between objectives (much like supply depots or CRUs) making them one more piece of map equipment to control for tactical gameplay to either be defended, lost, or blown up.
Talon Paetznick II Gallente Federation Resistance 75	Posted - 2015.03.06 04:09:00 - [115] - Quote a suggestion from me would be personal portals the control scheme would obviously mirror the RE R1 deploys the portal and L1 warps you to it obviously you would only carry one portal at a time an d the warp itself should have windup speed of cloak and decloak also maybe ad a flux effect (shields are depleted when you warp) and this would be less so in the higher tiers all proper murder is premeditated, that's what makes new Eden fun acidental mansluaghter charges in FW however are not
Baltazar Pontain Blauhelme E.B.O.L.A. 134	Posted - 2015.03.06 16:38:00 - [116] - Quote Here are my thoughts about it: * Sad that it is not deployable by players. But maybe some deployable versions will be implemented later. * Have you thought about introducing mass? So a blob would not be possible. If too much mass transists in short time the gate has to recharge. * If deployable: Think about different sizes. For vehicles and persons. * Against camping: What about the possibility to remote blow up a gate? Pro's: Camper dies and other comrades cannot accidently use the gate anymore.
Thor Odinson42 Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 6169	Posted - 2015.03.06 18:19:00 - [117] - Quote I skimmed through and didn't notice it, but couldn't you use jump fatigue to prevent jumping back and forth? Slightly OT: Anybody remember when Warriors, Inc would glitch in and out of objectives to keep people from hacking them?
GLOBAL RAGE Consolidated Dust 111	Posted - 2015.03.07 10:11:00 - [118] - Quote It sounds as if these gates exist, because they were part of the planets infrastructure not deployed at the start of hostilies. So as a maintenance portal to service the installation they have to make sense and not purely as military access, but as plant servicing ie the rings and roofs. Redundant to ladders, but safer. Entrance and exit would be in proximity to one another. It would make rooftop play more exciting while also being easily countered. Why would you build roads or bridges when you could just teleport?
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 862	Posted - 2015.03.07 10:27:00 - [119] - Quote Just spitballing here, but would it be possible to have these jump gates "link" different districts on a planet together by putting you in a queue for other battles happening on districts within a planet? If possible, that would be a cool way to "open up" the playing field and make dust feel a bit bigger I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
Snake Sellors Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 500	Posted - 2015.03.07 19:03:00 - [120] - Quote I think a good idea would be to use them as a point to point transport for squads in skirmish maps, it would allow fast movement between objectives, though i wouldnt suggest directly into the point. it could also be a godd way for full squads to fall back and regroup, etc but you will need to come up with a way of avoiding portal camping, what about auto turrets next to them, it could require hacking the portals for red/blue to use, once initially hacked it will try to kill the other teams if they are too close.

DJINN Jecture CANNIBALS RISING Dark Taboo 267	Posted - 2015.03.09 04:19:00 - [121] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively One suggestion, in addition to all of this, how about from one district to another allowing for bigger battles and merging larger areas for more people fighting all at once. Programmable for mercs to decide which district to go to. *--I am a Free Agent for Hire--*
knight guard fury Carbon 7 Iron Oxide. 1541	Posted - 2015.03.09 05:03:00 - [122] - Quote So reading this made me think, what if we opened up the rest of the district - allowed more players per battle - and used these "portals as a way of getting from one sector to another? Besides that, basically these are 'wormholes' but on planets. What if we had 1 or 2 convenient portals near or in the redline to a useful location to a strategic point on the map and have "neutral" portals that take us around the map randomly and randomly go away based on mass that has passed through. Also what if these portals for our redlined or near them were two way but we're in a "cool down" if used repeatedly, or just disappeared and reappeared somewhere else in the redline. And I have another idea to bring up: What if you guys allowed two sockets on one map having an even-ish balance of cannons on both sides and both teams had to defend m/attack the cannons and maintain dominance with less people but more action for squad play and etc with the obvious help/use of portals to prevent long runs/drives/flying time between sockets. SP earned perday/week
IAmDuncanIdaho II Nos Nothi 1560	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:57:00 - [123] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively - Please no more static things with built-in scans. It's not long since we got rid of them. It can be used offensively as well as to make sure you don't spawn somewhere that is being camped. Don't allow remotes etc. to be placed anywhere near in the first place, and figure out a mechanic to prevent mercs camping in the first place...though I'm more inclined to say that if you're that much of a blueberry with spawn choices that you spawn to that camped area a second time, more fool you. Re: redlining: - if your team is lacking enough to be redlined in the first place, then the problem is you can't break out of it either, nor can you hold an objective - I have a droplink runner fit for exactly this occasion. But when I break out at 10.38 m/s undetected and place some decent uplinks well away from my redline, it's not long, assuming my team even uses them, before we're redlined again. Because we're not running as a team remember. - perhaps if redlining is an issue that we would benefit from having fixed, then we can adjust the spawn points (either existing or new) so that there is no concept of a home point. Then they can be at opposite sides of the map, thereby splitting any teams of campers. Perhaps the MCCs can circle the map... Dunno - I like the idea, but I'm struggling to think of how it could change anything to solve a problem. We have vehicles, we have 11 m/s scouts if needs be, and we have, in theory, a whole 16 man team of redlined mercs that should be able to overrun campers to break out if there is any chance of then doing something useful for the rest of the game. Which I do not believe there is. Coz team A is that much better than team B. Certainly I do not think portals have any place as ways to travel across the map. Again, vehicles and scouts have mobility there, one of the penalties on slower moving mercs is it takes a long time to get anywhere else without support. So sorry to not really offer anything, but I thought it was worth posting my thoughts anyhoo... :)
Haerr Nos Nothi 2464	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:00:00 - [124] - Quote Replace all ladders with jump portals. And add several jump portals for each high area you can not get ontop of on foot.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 7383	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:29:00 - [125] - Quote Haerr wrote: Replace all ladders with jump portals. And add several jump portals for each high area you can not get ontop of on foot. Yes please! Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 491	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:41:00 - [126] - Quote Star Gate confirmed Caldari Loyalist Why should infrantry that don't own vehicles, that can't balance their own mechanics, balance vehicles
IAmDuncanIdaho II Nos Nothi 1565	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:04:00 - [127] - Quote all this talk of replacing ladders with something instant...i dont get it that removes some of the risk involved in accessing that high spot you want to get to. that makes for less diverse game play imo. why would a sniper bother keeping an eye on that ladder...where does the excitement of getting closer to the top and wondering if some troll sniper is gonna pop you just as you get to the top of it go....is the guy you want to assassinate at the top gonna check the ladder as you climb it? that said...should the new myofibs increase ladder climbing ability?
Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2559	Posted - 2015.03.11 03:53:00 - [128] - Quote Are in game renders of these portals a thing yet? For something like this, its probably best to give the community as much info as possible for feedback... Don't be afraid to show us. Just ignore the inevitable "Omg, dey luk so dum." that some people will spew, so that we can provide actual constructive feedback on them. These things are something that this game could be made much better with, or much worse. There is no in between, so I'd like to seem them done right, or not at all, tbh. Good community feedback on every aspect of them will help to insure that they are well done. Home at Last <3
knight guard fury Carbon 7 Iron Oxide. 1544	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:26:00 - [129] - Quote With UE4 being free and all why not let us help you; whoever has it anyway... Oh yea, that's right... SP earned perday/week
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 174	Posted - 2015.03.13 14:21:00 - [130] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals This will kill LAVs and Dropships as a transports. Drop uplinks already almost did it, you just commit this process. <[^_^]>

Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 248	Posted - 2015.03.14 03:53:00 - [131] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Star Gate confirmed Do they come with an IRIS and a GDO as a new equipment for the squad? How about a DHD? Now I want to throw a redberry into the unstable vortex, watching him get disintegrated before walking through the event horizon with my HMG primed and ready. Please no Replicators for Warlords 1.1... Purifier. First Class.
DJINN Jecture CANNIBALS RISING Dark Taboo 273	Posted - 2015.03.16 13:53:00 - [132] - Quote Please no, there are plenty of things to fix first without adding a new broken item/mechanic to the game. *--I am a Free Agent for Hire--*
Mad Syringe ReDust Inc. 518	Posted - 2015.03.16 15:46:00 - [133] - Quote I can't see any good use of them right now, exept another place where camping would happen. We already have those horrible homespawns out of the redline on the train yard map, please don't give us more of those. I'd rather have a clone launcher on the mcc, that can shoot mercs (like in the game trailer) into the battlefield. As long as you can aim in a certain area (no precise spot) that would be hilarious. Since it would not be campable (needs some mechanic to avoid those being blocked by derpships though (damn' all those mercs on my windshield... where is the wiper switch?)...
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK 3226	Posted - 2015.03.16 18:42:00 - [134] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Star Gate confirmed Claiming Teal'c! Or Baal. Goa'Uld System Lord! Symbiote at the ready for that fast regen Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? SCV Ready!
Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 253	Posted - 2015.03.16 22:14:00 - [135] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: Star Gate confirmed Claiming Teal'c! Or Baal. Goa'Uld System Lord! Symbiote at the ready for that fast regen Jaffa! Cree! Purifier. First Class.
Lord Echo Prime Ghost Reconnaissance Unit 19	Posted - 2015.03.17 04:24:00 - [136] - Quote IAmDuncanIdaho II wrote: - Please no more static things with built-in scans. It's not long since we got rid of them. It can be used offensively as well as to make sure you don't spawn somewhere that is being camped. Don't allow remotes etc. to be placed anywhere near in the first place, and figure out a mechanic to prevent mercs camping in the first place...though I'm more inclined to say that if you're that much of a blueberry with spawn choices that you spawn to that camped area a second time, more fool you. Re: redlining: - if your team is lacking enough to be redlined in the first place, then the problem is you can't break out of it either, nor can you hold an objective - I have a droplink runner fit for exactly this occasion. But when I break out at 10.38 m/s undetected and place some decent uplinks well away from my redline, it's not long, assuming my team even uses them, before we're redlined again. Because we're not running as a team remember. - perhaps if redlining is an issue that we would benefit from having fixed, then we can adjust the spawn points (either existing or new) so that there is no concept of a home point. Then they can be at opposite sides of the map, thereby splitting any teams of campers. Perhaps the MCCs can circle the map... Dunno - I like the idea, but I'm struggling to think of how it could change anything to solve a problem. We have vehicles, we have 11 m/s scouts if needs be, and we have, in theory, a whole 16 man team of redlined mercs that should be able to overrun campers to break out if there is any chance of then doing something useful for the rest of the game. Which I do not believe there is. Coz team A is that much better than team B. Certainly I do not think portals have any place as ways to travel across the map. Again, vehicles and scouts have mobility there, one of the penalties on slower moving mercs is it takes a long time to get anywhere else without support. So sorry to not really offer anything, but I thought it was worth posting my thoughts anyhoo... :) I would like to expand on the concept of having a portal and its functionality, at the designer level and at the player level, with the following: Designer Level: 1) In agreement with IAmDuncanIdaho II (as I am also a 10+ m/s Scout and can attest to such gameplay), I'm not sure how much it could offer, having a stationary /objective/ CRU-like portal without shorting/ under-utilizing/ neutralizing the tools that we do have to break redlining: LAVs with Logis, Dropships, Scouts, and some much needed Teamwork. For those with Redlining Issues, please refer to the above quote by IAmDuncanIdaho, and the following by DJINN Jecture (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=187993&find=unread) and Big Burns (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=190343&find=unread). It can help your gameplay immensely. 2) The Portal Camping would become just as bad as any other situation, ie spawn camping, redlining, etc., while the QQ continues and skilled, tactical gameplay/ teamwork drops off. 3) The Round Robin gameplay would be the side-effect, and may override actually trying to win/ claim the objectives. Experimentation is ALWAYS good, but I would not want anything that would simplify Dust 514 to any other FPS. I like mechanics that make you think of unique and unexpected ways of handling dynamic situations, making you HTFU. So for this level, I say "Hold Off" until/ unless it incorporates more of the EVE side gameplay (district to district, maybe?) Player Level: IF IT WERE POSSIBLE 1) Have portal devices/ units like the spawn units. The problem is when redlining occurs/ you die, your options are limited to spawning in the MCC or at whatever team uplink is available. What would change that and add to the gameplay is being able to drop a portal on the map to allow "in-game spawning/ travel" within play, without having to die to pick an uplink to spawn to. 2) You could only carry two portal uplinks, one as A, the other as B. Leave it up to the individual as where to place them. You could make them one-way, ie A to B, and apply CPU/ PG cost for the devices. 3) Have different levels/ versions of Portal Uplinks available, based on the skill level of the player: Level 1, Individual/ unit portal. can transport only people. Level 3, LAV level. Can move people and LAV. Level 5, HAV level. Can move people, LAV and HAV. 4) Limit the number of "spawns" the portal can have, just like the regular uplinks, and the speed/transfer rate of the portal, based on the kind and level, ie 3 sec vs 12 sec. Also, have an equation that calculates WHAT can go through, based on what has already went through, ie: Individual = 1, LAV = 3, HAV = 5. A Level 3 Portal Uplink has 8 usage. That is 8 Individuals, 2 LAV + 2 Individuals, 1 HAV + 1 LAV or 1 HAV + 3 Individuals. 5) Expanding on #2, make them one-way for regular usage, and make a special two-way portal uplink a special, hard to get/ find item. 6) Allow the player to see where the portal uplinks are, using the overhead map, and have a glowing effect for the entrance/ exits of the Portal Uplinks, like some Radiation Green for an entrance and a Crimson Red for an exit., along with a number showing/ displaying how many usages are left, (see #4). Also, like the spawn uplinks, have the portal uplinks team/ side-based also, ie only the side dropping the portal uplinks can be used by that side. Just an idea, my take on the portal issue. But if a Portal Uplink EVER rolls out, I have one request: name the most badass version after me (LEP-86 Portal Uplink) or my corp (GRU- 19 Mass Portal Uplink). Now we're having fun! : Modus Operandi: We Are Legion. We Are Ghosts. We Do Not Exist.
DiablosMajora 42	Posted - 2015.03.17 23:45:00 - [137] - Quote Portal guns when? (I'm serious...) But really, if the new jump portals are like doorways why not throw some lore in there and make them mini WORMHOLES!??! Sound effects and pulsing included. Prepare your angus
Fleen Costell'o Vacuum Cleaner. LLC Steel Balls Alliance 582	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:45:00 - [138] - Quote Your all crazy, and don't crying in general discussion... after add this Farm Portal's BUGS514 Find all. I love ksu123 )
DJINN Jecture MANUFACTURERS OF DEATH 275	Posted - 2015.03.18 05:21:00 - [139] - Quote I thought long and hard about this and the only real reason I can envision to use these is to go from one district to another. That said I think this is a bad idea when scotty is drunk half the time and the other half can't find his score cards for matches and puts us in random end match screens. *--I am a Free Agent for Hire--*
Haerr Nos Nothi 2564	Posted - 2015.03.20 10:58:00 - [140] - Quote I had a thought about the jump portals. The jist of it is that the redline is pushed way back, with safe spawns back in the redline with portals to forward bases which are dotted around between the objectives and the redline. * New Redline is based on the longest range weapon's range times 2 (900m from any objective) * Safe spawn bases available in the redline, the safe spawns have one way portals to: * Forward bases dotted around between the objectives and the redline, these bases have exit portals from the safe spawns

Raedon Vo-Graza Armored Dragon Dust 72	Posted - 2015.03.23 15:17:00 - [141] - Quote If you want to make a map with two way portals Rattati, you might be able to get some inspiration from the game that was named after this engine: Unreal Tournament 3 here take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VpE4Ge6CeI info about this map called gateway: 3 small maps connected by 2 way portals, one map has reduced gravity maybe in dust we have a map that floats, Dropships are the easiest way around, but the portals offer another option and maybe the redlines is a separate "island" with 2 one way portals into the closest objective and the next closest (to try to prevent gate camping with re's or what not) And another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4rhRPXj0y0 Neat info about this map called deimos: When inside the station, gravity is normal, jump mechanics are normal When outside the station jump height is about tripled, and fall damage is negated The in the "red tubes" (seen in 2:26 and 3:43) can be swam through in all directions The green platforms while able to be walked on, can be shot through (seen at 1:44) Though you never see it in this video, the portal leads to a turret that overlooks the map By the way, this game is for PS3 so it is within the PS3's limitations to work if done correctly. oh oh! and how about a translocater? just like in UT3! here's another map with portals, and a translocater to boot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e3j0EA3t1g
Argetlam Thorson Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 102	Posted - 2015.03.24 18:42:00 - [142] - Quote I think the best bet would be to place the the portals 20-30 meters from the redline on either side, maybe further for the ones in the redline. (Possibly some on the outside be in midair to make spawn camping, redline retreating, and redline raids more difficult). Two way would be great, it would possibly help us kill redline snipers (I hate you guys) as well as allow jumping back to safety for a retreating redberry. Would it be possible to lock return through a portal for X time or until your clone died? I think this would also help. Then you wouldn't be able to pop in and out to drop some gunfire/RE's/grenades and then jump back to safety playing portal jump whack-a-mole. Another idea is to only allow advance through the portals, not retreat. Honestly, I would just prefer straight up two way transport, but a possible idea is to only allow for one way transport depending on what team you are on. Portals on your redline only allow you to exit the redline and redberries to enter (meaning going through one is a 20 second death warrant for them). Portals on the enemy redline allow you to jump in and them to jump out. Youtube channel
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5890	Posted - 2015.04.05 18:09:00 - [143] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively So basically an extremely miniaturized version of the Jump Bridges in EVE! This is a great idea! Would it be possible to link their function to a capturable objective? So for instance you can find one of those portals under posession of the enemy, but until you hack the console you can't go through it? Maybe even that hacking one side will only let you go through one way, and you have to survive long enough to hack the other side to allow two-way functionality? I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Marcus Stormfire G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 52	Posted - 2015.04.06 23:15:00 - [144] - Quote Lot's of information on this thread so if I repeat anything then my apologies . +1 I like the idea of short distance wormhole travel. However it has to be carefully implemented otherwise it could be disastrous. Some Ideas come to mind Short Term: - Fixed entry on board the MCC to fixed exits on the ground. (Requires either new map designs or careful planning on existing designs) - Fixed entry on board the MCC to random exits on the ground (Unstable wormholes without orbital dropped structures) Hopefully helps solve the issue of a red lined team being unable to escape and/or the removal of the red line. The randomness of the exit also helps prevent the exit from being found and camped. -Temporary cloak upon exiting to reduce effectiveness of camping an exit. (Applicable to structures and unstable exits) Issues to contend with: - Remote Explosives and portal camping. Perhaps allow Flux/ regular Grenades the ability to enter and exit these portals. Scan precision and range seems to be a popular and easier idea. Mid Term: -Deploy-able portals via orbital drop. Expend X amount of WP's and give the portal X amount of Beefy Hit points. An entrance and Exit portal needs to be deployed to work. -Mass limitations. Wormhole portals are only able to handle a certain amount of Mass depending on skills and type of equipment/structure is deployed. MCC portals and deployed portals have a cool down timer until capacity regenerates. -Separate portal types to infantry only wormholes and vehicle only wormholes. Wormholes that can do both may quickly become overpowered. - Make deploy-able wormhole structures hackable to the opposing team to either shut down the exit or to link it to their entrance? Long Term: - Portals connecting districts to each other and warbarges to districts. A ground team is still needed to mark a spot for deployment. -Variable map designs where battle commanders can build a permanent portal facility for easy troop movement between different districts if more than one district is attacked at the same time. -Link warbarges to the battlefield. Allow near instant vehicle deployment through a friendly portal array. (limited each battle by the mass allowed. once the mass is used up then it is unavailable for the rest of the fight) This can be easily countered if the portal is poorly placed thus resulting in a massacre -Bolas Drops will still be more reliable and easier to call in however warbarge portals open up the Dust 514 Hotdrop that everyone has been so eagerly waiting for -If a portal is destroyed then vehicle/infantry will randomly appear on the map for better or most likely worse. I am sure these ideas need refining. I will likely re-visit this post and update it or post a new reply. -Marcus -I don't always kill Mercs with a sidearm, But when I do I use militia.
Haerr Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 2710	Posted - 2015.04.07 15:33:00 - [145] - Quote With the help of jump portals you can finally move the redline back to 1km away from any and all objectives! doooo eeet
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1924	Posted - 2015.04.09 22:50:00 - [146] - Quote I still don't like this idea. Looking at both sides of the coin. Even Aurum one.
BLOOD Ruler VOLKOV INDUSTRIES 1656	Posted - 2015.04.13 13:58:00 - [147] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: I still don't like this idea. Too bad, I love it. There won't be a heart left beating... Is that fear I smell I'll kill you, I'll kill your family, I'll kill your Stars.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 20620	Posted - 2015.04.14 03:08:00 - [148] - Quote Thanks for the feedback. We will add copies of a couple of academy maps and see whether players find them intuitive. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

SCV Ready!