DUST Search - Dropships: the future

CELESTA AUNGM wrote:

GÇªGÇªGÇª..
What?

GÇªGÇªGÇª.
GÇªGÇªGÇª.. Sad

How many pages was the dev-thread for HAV Progression? 100+ pages? I didn't read through much of it, but I can imagine the discussion was as heated as Rattati hinted it was.

I still think, right now is a little too early for individual players (ANY of us) to stand up and post "facts" about the Dropship's quality and things it deserves. It's always a bad idea to (and too easy to) fall into the impression that you're representing the views of your fellow vehicle-players. Especially when it comes to the DS.

I get a feeling that, if we trace Dust 514 back far enough, we'll find that DS players (yep, I will count myself as guilty too) were the first players to get nipple-fixation over their Dust toy, and, wellGÇªum, we are guilty of letting our cocky idea of flying get in the way of:

--Agreeing on some fundamentals that we like about the fitting-slots and module-stacking, which can help the devs toward creating a Progression the way they've established for HAVs.

--Getting CCP a consensus set of "jobs" or functions for the DS, which had begun being debated back in 2013, but repeatedly gets derailed in a gasoline fire.
Hey
--Earning much healthy social-cooperation or gameplay respect from the players who drive OTHER vehicles or who happen to do OTHER jobs in this infantry-game besides "Dropship Piloting".

I personally don't think these player-authored threads will survive any better than the 2013 threadsGÇª not until Rattati starts his own official Dropship-Progression thread. And even then, pleaseGÇª. we're gonna have to swallow a LOT of humble pie amongst ourselves in order to help the devs keep the thread viable.

Let the Devs handle the cpu/pg reworking, and perhaps let them handle the modules and Skilling rework too.
Take a breather and lay off the AVers a bit (they aren't as big an enemy to us as we have been to ourselves).
I know we've often felt ignored before,GÇª but this time finally the devs DO want to start discussing the DS; maybe let's let Rattati choose which parts they want to discuss and how.
(ugh, I'm sounding like Gandhi, or something Oops

)

It's just that, if HAV-Progression took 100 pages to debate, I just don't want our chance at restoring DS to end up 500+ pages and a Dev-failure due to too much of our own,GÇª.well, "pilot righteousness".


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command 266	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:02:00 - [1] - Quote CELESTA AUNGM wrote: GÇªGÇªGÇª.. GÇªGÇªGÇª. GÇªGÇªGÇª.. How many pages was the dev-thread for HAV Progression? 100+ pages? I didn't read through much of it, but I can imagine the discussion was as heated as Rattati hinted it was. I still think, right now is a little too early for individual players (ANY of us) to stand up and post "facts" about the Dropship's quality and things it deserves. It's always a bad idea to (and too easy to) fall into the impression that you're representing the views of your fellow vehicle-players. Especially when it comes to the DS. I get a feeling that, if we trace Dust 514 back far enough, we'll find that DS players (yep, I will count myself as guilty too) were the first players to get nipple-fixation over their Dust toy, and, wellGÇªum, we are guilty of letting our cocky idea of flying get in the way of: --Agreeing on some fundamentals that we like about the fitting-slots and module-stacking, which can help the devs toward creating a Progression the way they've established for HAVs. --Getting CCP a consensus set of "jobs" or functions for the DS, which had begun being debated back in 2013, but repeatedly gets derailed in a gasoline fire. Hey --Earning much healthy social-cooperation or gameplay respect from the players who drive OTHER vehicles or who happen to do OTHER jobs in this infantry-game besides "Dropship Piloting". I personally don't think these player-authored threads will survive any better than the 2013 threadsGÇª not until Rattati starts his own official Dropship-Progression thread. And even then, pleaseGÇª. we're gonna have to swallow a LOT of humble pie amongst ourselves in order to help the devs keep the thread viable. Let the Devs handle the cpu/pg reworking, and perhaps let them handle the modules and Skilling rework too. Take a breather and lay off the AVers a bit (they aren't as big an enemy to us as we have been to ourselves). I know we've often felt ignored before,GÇª but this time finally the devs DO want to start discussing the DS; maybe let's let Rattati choose which parts they want to discuss and how. (ugh, I'm sounding like Gandhi, or something) It's just that, if HAV-Progression took 100 pages to debate, I just don't want our chance at restoring DS to end up 500+ pages and a Dev-failure due to too much of our own,GÇª.well, "pilot righteousness". This is an incredibly well put post. The last time drop ship pilots came together and agreed on something, they kept the ads from getting removed from the game. None of the other pilots managed to do the same and more vehicles got taken out than what was announced. Now for over a year we've had practically no vehicle variation while ads pilots kept their ships, bickering and crying all the way. If pilots come together and form a united consensus about whats needed for dropship piloting, everyone can get their way. Its been proven already so get with the program here Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face